51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194932 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Steve Zara: RtG should have said "my logic is the same as William Paley's - design is evidence for a designer"

What design?

The conversation was about the fact that debunking evolution (even if it were possible to do so) does not demonstrate design. The creationists don't get it by default - they have to make the positive case for creation, not just declare evolution to be impossible. I declare creation to have been impossible - but that doesn't prove evolution, does it? To conclude that "evolution did it", we need evidence that evolution did it. (Fortunately, there's more than enough of that.)

Anything else is as logical as saying "Well, Paula didn't murder that guy, so Steve must have done it." To convict YOU of the murder, it isn't enough to acquit ME of it.

That aside, though, I think we should all make a few allowances for RtG just now. No doubt his praying is beginning to work and his wings are beginning to bud. I should imagine it's a bit like teething in a baby. No wonder he's a little tetchy and confused.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194545 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 am

Hey, Lying for Jesus has just overtaken Fleabytes! (7763 comments) Brilliant! Great to see that the Fleabytes marathon wasn't a one-off. :-)

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194305 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

RTG:devotion:

1 a: religious fervor : piety b: an act of prayer or private worship â€"usually used in plural c: a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, RTG, but there really is more than one book, you know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devotion

By the way - evidence for creation?

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194293 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm

RTG: I know my prayers and the prayers of others will eventually turn you from your heathen ways and turn you into a much happier spiritual soul.

So why are you still posting on this site, then? Wouldn't your time be better spent in prayer? What an insult to your god to think his response to your prayers will only work if you keep coming back here to check up on his progress! You know, the best demonstration of your faith really would be to pray and then bugger off and leave him to get on with it in his own good time. The very fact you don't do that rather undermines your own professed confidence in the procedure.

And you've got those wings to pray for too, don't forget. Go on, off you go, you're going to be far too busy to post on here.

Unless you feel like giving us that evidence for creation, of course?

55. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194213 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

PM for you, Mixmastergaz

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194143 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm

RTG: how would you know that I actually grew wings?

But presumably you think your god's going to do a good job of giving you wings if you pray for them, don't you? You're not expecting him to fob you or us off with a bodge job, presumably? Maybe you should just add an extra clause in your prayer, asking that your wings and flight should be demonstrated clearly and incontrovertibly so as to stand up to scrutiny of any kind. That should be child's play to a god who can give you wings and enable you to fly in the first place.

Off you go. You've got some praying to do. Or perhaps you're not quite so confident of your assertion, after all?

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194120 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

RTG: Yes. At least by praying, it would be possible.

Care to prove that? You could, you know. You just need to go away and pray hard to grow wings and fly - then you find an independent witness and get them to film you, clearly showing your wings and clearly showing you flying unaided, and post the film here. Even the most sceptical atheist would be impressed.

Are you on?

Oh no, let me guess. Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test, right?

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194111 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm

RTG: Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.

Perhaps you could try praying?

59. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193447 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Scottish Geologist: "I find it odd that UHI allows HTC funding with their dogmatic exclusive stance."

I get the strong impression that the comment you've quoted has not come from a Christians Together regular, but from a fellow atheist. That was certainly how I interpreted it, anyway.n

60. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193330 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 11:02 am

Epeeist:So copyright theft is fine, presumably providing you are only stealing from atheists.

Well, funny you should mention that. A quick look at the Christians Together website's own terms and conditions makes it clear that material from there may only be quoted elsewhere provided its source is clearly acknowledged and a url/hyperlink to the original page provided! (http://www.christianstogether.net/User/TermsAndConditions.aspx)

Now, who was it who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" again? :-)

61. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193326 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 10:43 am

Christians Together: Paula said:
"I suspect you're rather wasting your time looking for help from us."

Sadly Paula it is beginning to look that way. Thus far (as I'm sure any objective reader would agree) all that my bona fide request has brought (with possibly one exception from someone who is "miles away from Scotland") are body-swerves, side-tracking, objections, spurious alternatives etc. etc.

Actually, Colin, your request has brought clear explanations of why we're not interested in helping you.

Let me recap:
1. Very few of us here are from Scotland, so you are dealing with a target audience of maybe four or five people
2. Even fewer have anything but contempt for David Robertson as a result of his behaviour on this site
3. There are objections in principle to participating in an evolution vs creationism "debate" at all.

[EDIT: It's rather like prayer, Colin: sometimes the answer is "No".]

I'd rather you didn't quote me as if we were in agreement if you're then going to attempt to give my words your meaning rather than mine.

And, talking of quoting me, I see that you have lifted my report of last week's UHI theology lecture and put it on your own website (http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=114100) without acknowledgement of where it came from - despite 2 requests from a guest on your site to provide a link. I have now posted the information he was looking for - but I wonder why you yourself didn't?

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193066 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Goldy: One person praying for me is an annoyance - millions is an imposition that can directly and adversely affect my life.

How? I can see how millions of people believing in prayer could directly and adversely affect your life, simply by the influence they could exert on public policy etc - but how would their actual praying make any difference to you?

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192895 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Steve Zara: You will note as well that Paula did not threaten me with physical harm or everlasting damnation for disagreeing with her.

Oh, don't spoil my fun. I was saving that up for later! ;-)

Seriously, thanks for your thoughts in #7149. Fascinating stuff and, yes, it all makes sense.

How will the creationists react when we find out for sure, you ask? Oh, I think we can hazard a pretty good guess at that. At that point they'll argue that THAT has no meaning, because we still can't say what caused Big Bang. And when we've discovered what caused Big Bang, they'll say that THAT has no meaning because we still can't say what caused whatever it was that caused Big Bang ... and so on ... and so forth ... ad tedious, predictable nauseam.

They NEED to believe that God did it. We know that because they keep telling us how depressing and pointless their lives would be without that belief. So they will go on believing it in the face of all the evidence, and they will go on pretending that it's we atheists, and not they, whose lives have a huge void that needs filling.

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192853 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 4:09 am

Steve Zara: Paula. I am very sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you. I hope it is going to be in an interesting way.

Steve, it is always interesting when you disagree with me! No apology required, especially when I'm venturing into areas about which I only have the most rudimentary knowledge.

But I'm not sure, reading your post, that we're really disagreeing - I suspect that it was just my sloppy non-scientist's use of scientific terms that's causing the difficulty. I was assuming that the cell WAS the first self-replicating system (as I said, I'm not a scientist!) (Actually, my correspondent was also assuming this, as it was he who had raised the issue - and he IS a scientist, albeit a physicist, not a biologist. And his science is trumped, of course, by his fundamentalist Christianity. However, I digress.... )

If entities earlier than the cell could self-replicate, then I have no difficulty in seeing how the concepts of evolution by natural selection might extend back to them too.

But presumably there must have been a point before which self-replicating thingummyjigs didn't exist? In which case, the process by which they came into existence could not itself have been evolution by natural selection?

Feel free to tear this apart - I make no claims to real understanding on this subject, and would like to know more!

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192832 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 2:51 am

Received the Gift: Without knowledge of the origin of life, how can one even consider understanding the process in which you claim life evolved?

I had this discussion with someone else just recently, so I shall simply copy here the email I sent to him:

It's certainly going to be fascinating once scientists find out how the first self-replicating cell came into being, and it's going to be a hugely important contribution to our scientific understanding of life - but it won't strengthen the case for evolution by natural selection because BY DEFINITION evolution by natural selection only takes place once the self-replicating cell is there. So whatever process caused the first self-replicating cell it's NOT going to be evolution by natural selection. Knowing how the first self-replicating cell came into being won't strengthen the case for evolution by natural selection and NOT knowing doesn't weaken it.

They are two different processes.

To say that it's not worth talking about evolution by natural selection because we don't know yet how the first self-replicating cell came into being is just silly. The evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming and not remotely undermined by the fact we don't yet know what happened before it - just as our evidence for Italian's descent from Latin is not remotely undermined by the fact that we don't yet know what the first ever language was.

Just because you don't know how something got from A to B doesn't mean you can't be confident of how it got from B to M provided there's enough evidence for it. Though it will certainly be fascinating once the A to B bit has been discovered too. I hope it's in my lifetime.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192804 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 1:44 am

Received the Gift: I truly am trying to understand why this discussion resulted in most of you displaying such an animosity and heartless attack on Christianity. Why are you so afraid. This display has to be the result of some uncertainty in your subconscience mind. Why do you feel so threatened? Jesus is near whenever you call for him. Only he can fill this void in your heart. I challenge you. Just ask.

And if we reacted with hostility to someone who came in here trying to advocate Hitler as a role model, would it be because, subconsciously, we were afraid we might be secret Fascists?

67. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192474 by Paula Kirby on June 13, 2008 at 6:21 am

Steve Zara: "Considering Miracles: Cheques and Balances"

Thank you, Steve. I was in need of a good laugh, and your post came along right on cue!

68. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192451 by Paula Kirby on June 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

Christians Together: I can't believe that those who so actively participate in the this on-line message board are all unwilling/unable to defend your viewpoint in live discussion.

I think you may be encountering problems on 2 fronts. The first is that this is an international site. I can only think of 3 active participants who are based in Scotland (though there may be others I'm not aware of, of course).

The other is your choice of David Robertson as one of the speakers on the religious/creationist side.

As I said to you on the phone when you first asked me, I personally have no interest in debating David Robertson because, to judge from his behaviour on this website, he is devious, sly, dishonest, aggressive, and lacking in decency or integrity. There is simply no point in debating such a person.

I have no reason to believe I am the only person on this site who has come to this conclusion.

Others have also pointed out the inherent flaw in the way the debate is being formulated - as though atheism and evolution were somehow two sides of the same coin. There are also objections in principle to debating with a creationist AT ALL, as it merely plays into the hands of those who wish to claim (quite erroneously) that there is actually any scientific controversy on the subject to debate.

Although I can only speak for myself, of course, I suspect you're rather wasting your time looking for help from us.

69. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191686 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I agree that it's horribly vague and highly unlikely to result in any government action. I've still signed it, though, for the simple reason that it's an opportunity to let the government know that an increasing number of us are fed up to the back teeth with religion. Being supportive of religion has tended to be seen as the safe option for governments - the more of us who sign petitions such as this one, the sooner I hope they'll realise that times have changed and that standing up to religion will not necessarily be a vote-loser.

70. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191658 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Barry Pearson: Are you saying that he objects to the concept of "be tolerant towards people with other views, but if those people display intolerance, be intolerant specifically to their intolerance until they cease being intolerant"?

He objects, I think, to anything that doesn't accept that Christianity has the one-and-only Truth.

He literally said that the facts discovered by science mean nothing unless placed in the context of God as ultimate creator, and that someone who became a Christian yesterday had more real knowledge than the most brilliant professor in Oxford. I wrote this down verbatim.

Not only did theology have a place in a modern university, but a university had no business calling itself a university unless it taught theology. And remember - he meant theology, not religious studies: ie. he meant studies founded in the assumption that God exists and has revealed himself to us.

This was Christianity in militant form.

71. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191476 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 3:18 am

UHI held their second public lecture in this series on "Religion and Science" last night, and I thought you might like to hear about it. It was the second of three - interestingly, in order to redress the "balance" after Richard's talk in April, they are holding not one but TWO talks by theologians!

Last night's was the inaugural lecture of the new Professor of Theology at the Highland Theological College. (In October we're getting Dr John Lennox.)

The topic of his lecture was, "Is there a place for theology in a modern university?" And oh boy, it was quite an experience. The preacher, sorry, lecturer is a minister in the Church of Scotland and delivered something that was less a lecture and more a sermon: the intonation, the pacing, the dramatic intakes of breath, the gestures - everything. I kept expecting the congregation, sorry, audience, to utter "Amen" at the end of his sentences. And I was totally outnumbered, of course. You can tell just by LOOKING at the audience. You can up here, anyway. The women wear frumpy clothes and clearly don't approve of hairdressers; the men wear dark suits and frowns.

I have to say the theology prof did a quite remarkable job. I went into it quite convinced that the answer to his question was No, there is no place for theology in a modern university - but he managed to leave me not just convinced it had no place there but was an absolute DISGRACE to a modern university. This man is an unabashed, unashamed proselytizer and spent the hour of his sermon defending the right of Christianity to take a proselytizing role.

He started off by quoting Richard's letter on "The emptiness of theology" (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,88,The-Emptiness-of-Theology,Richard-Dawkins), and I was interested to watch the audience as he did so. Deep silence. I wondered about applauding at the end of it, but didn't really fancy being lynched. Then he went on to say that some theologians share Richard's view that theology has no place in a university - because it should not be subject to the scrutiny and validation of secular academic bodies, and should only be taught by the church!

Next we had a detour via tradition - ancient universities were founded by the church and theology didn't just have a place in them but was at the very heart of them. The University of Beijing, we were told, recently decided to set up a dept of Christian Theology because ALL the great universities of the world had one.

There then followed a vigorous defence of theology as opposed to religious studies: religious studies was a sociological discipline that studied religious places, people and traditions; theology, by contrast, was based on the belief that God really exists and that he has spoken to us and chosen to reveal himself to us.

This he attempted to justify by lambasting the Enlightenment. Those who claim that theology has no place in a modern university are usually working on Enlightenment presuppositions, notably that human reason is the final criteria (sic - I'm quoting verbatim) for decision-making. He saw the Enlightenment as signalling the move towards secularism, and declared this to have been damaging to an integrated and unified system of knowledge (one that incorporates the supernatural as well as the natural, I suppose he meant). He declared that this had even had a negative effect on some theologians, who had, as a result, created a theology that abandoned belief in the incarnation, the resurrection, miracles, and intervention by a supernatural God. We were given to understand that this Wouldn't Do.

He then amused me by referring to Notre Dame - I can't remember why he referred to it because I was too distracted by his pronouncing it "Notre Dayme", with a long "a". What a shame he didn't study a proper subject during his own university days.

Anyway, he then enlisted postmodernism (of all things) in his support, delighting in the fact that postmodernists have challenged science and declared the objectivity of scientific method to be a myth. Dawkins, apparently, presents himself as someone unencumbered by presuppositions and Christians as people who can't move for them, but his atheism is every bit as much of a presupposition as the preacher's belief in God. Dawkins' presupposition, he claimed, is that everything that exists came about by chance ... Yes, I nearly screamed at that point too and was only saved from doing so by the fact that my jaw then hit the floor as he went on to say that we must challenge the notion that because theology is based on faith it cannot be a science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He then went on to argue at some length that theology should be seen as science. (So you see it was not without its entertainment value, after all.) The thing is, he explained, you have to adapt your method of enquiry to the nature of the object being studied. God is a living, real being in trinity who has chosen to make himself known to us, and the nature of our enquiry must reflect this. (I wrote all this nonsense down verbatim in my trusty notebook.) He then quoted at length someone called Torrance who had written about the interface between religion and science and been awarded the Templeton Prize for his pains. (He announced this in awed tones as though it actually meant anything.)

Theology, apparently, is based on actual and objective knowledge of God. (At this point I drew a big smiley face in my notebook, though only because my drawing isn't good enough to do someone pulling their hair out.)

There followed a plug for the Highland Theological College's particular brand of theology - i.e. reformed, or Calvinist, theology. Apparently this is the only truly scientific theology, because it is based entirely on the revelation of God. So that's ok then.

Christian theologians are more honest than scientists, apparently, because at least they declare their presuppositions in advance. And those who say that theology has no place in a modern university are relativists, who say we're not allowed to declare anything as objectively true !!!!!!!!!!!!

(Can you imagine how I wriggled and squirmed throughout this utterly ridiculous lecture? Can you imagine how I heaved sigh after sigh of frustration? And can you imagine how close I came to walking out about halfway through?)

He went on to lament the present day tendency to tolerate anything except lack of tolerance - the insistence on openness and relativism. (I would have had more sympathy with this view, had he not previously enlisted the very Postmodernism that underlies it in order to attack science.) He set up the debate very much as an opposition between relativism and "the truth of God's self-revelation" - which I suppose wasn't so unreasonable given that he'd utterly dismissed the Enlightenment notion of truth based on evidence.

Christianity, apparently, is the means of integrating all knowledge - without a God-centred worldview we cannot have full knowledge of anything. Allegedly. I just loved the fact that he then went on to say that when early scientists started studying astronomy, they got it all wrong because they insisted on putting this Earth at the centre of the universe. Yes, that's right, it was scientists who started that nonsense about the Earth being at the centre of the universe. Nothing to do with the religious lot! (Just remind me what happened to Copernicus again ...)

He used this as the base from which to argue that the facts discovered by science may be true, but they can only constitute real truth if placed in the context of God as the ultimate creator. Without this, science can make no real contribution to truth.

He went on to say (with a knowing, wink-wink look at the audience) that the most brilliant professor in Oxford, if he be an atheist, has less real knowledge than someone who became a Christian yesterday. It is impossible to develop an integrated system of knowledge without God.

He finished off by arguing that theologians should play MORE of a role in universities and in national debate generally. Apparently the poor things have been excluded from national debates on issues of national identity and ethics etc, and aren't allowed onto the committees that advise government on such issues. Poor things. I really had no idea they were so badly done by.

There weren't many questions. The first was the most the interesting: Was there a place for 6-day creationism in a modern university? The answer was that theologians are divided on the question (so much for God having revealed his truth!), but that individual theologians should have the right to reach conclusions based on scripture, and have them respected.

The next question was whether there was any room for Shiva in the university! The answer was so nonsensical, it could have been composed by Edward Lear. "Any attempt to provide an account of reality and the significance of human beings has a place at a modern university, provided it gives a coherent account of reality." Ahem. Follow-up question: Would he be prepared to expand the Highland Theological College curriculum to incorporate other theologies? Answer: No!

So all in all it was an Experience with a Capital E. I'd fully planned to ask a question at the end, but honestly - where was I to start? The man had done nothing but spout complete nonsense from beginning to end. He's also a professional preacher, and had the advantage of being on the stage with the microphone - he'd have had the last word in any exchange. I decided it just wasn't worth it.

So I went home and unwound with a large glass of Remy Martin instead.

72. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190049 by Paula Kirby on June 8, 2008 at 9:28 am

Irate Atheist: To which I can only ask -

1. Are you creationists?
2. Do you claim that evolution is false?

As I understand it, the plan for this debate is to have an atheist and an evolutionist on one side and a Christian and a creationist on the other.

This is seen as approaching the questions from both the religious and the scientific points of view. The implication of this, it seems to me, is that creationist arguments are going to be put forward as though they held any kind of scientific standing.

What interests me most about this is the automatic assumption that Christians will be opposed to evolution. I know many Christians (though admittedly not here in the Highlands) who have no difficulty whatsoever accepting the truth of evolution. It's just that they assume that God directed it.

I was a Christian for years and cannot recall a single time when evolution was challenged either in the various churches I attended or by the other Christians I knew. I can't help wondering whether my greater awareness of anti-evolution views these days is simply due to the fact that I've moved to a more religiously fundamentalist part of the country, or whether it really does reflect a genuine rise in creationist "thinking". I HOPE it's the former, obviously.

73. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #187226 by Paula Kirby on June 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm

ChristiansTogether: Sorry Paula, I didn't communicate well - mea culpa. What I was wondering was if you could point me to a couple of folk (in Scotland) who would be prepared to participate in a debate (venue Inverness) with a chairperson of mutual acceptability.

LOL! "That's not my phone call you're describing." :-)

74. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #179576 by Paula Kirby on May 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm

bitsphere: One tiny critique though, the sofa should have been given to the guest interviewee rather than the interviewer. A known protocol

We were going to be the other way round, but the cameraman asked us to swop over because of where the camera was located. If we'd stayed as we were originally, the camera would have had a much better view of me than of Richard. Which wasn't really the object of the exercise! :-)

75. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178497 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Artful: So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

Who says there is one?

76. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178492 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.

77. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178350 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

Just obscene.

I cannot begin to imagine how it must feel to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable - let alone something to be proud of.

78. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178331 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:39 am

Epeeist: The thing that gets me is the dishonesty of much of the so called arguments that theists seem to put together.

Yes, I can relate to that. But do they REALISE they're being dishonest, do you think? Sometimes it's so blatant that they surely MUST be aware of what they're doing; but I think many Christians
aren't being knowingly dishonest at all.

I think what gets me even more than the dishonesty is the snideness. The almost audible sneers. And the smugness, too. Highland Christianity is not a pretty thing.

79. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178329 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:31 am

riandouglas: I'm curious as to whether that is not exactly how our "side" appears to the "opposition"?
I don't think it is, and I don't think I think that simply because I feel like I'm "one of us". Basically, is there some objective method of comparing arguments to show that one is tragically flawed?

Well, I think theists DO find us vicious and offensive; but I think that's less because we actually ARE vicious and offensive than because they find our disbelief offensive in itself.

As an example: last week I was rung up by the editor of the Christians Together website. As a follow-up to Richard's event in Inverness, he is hoping to arrange a formal debate between Christians and atheists later in the year, and he invited me to be one of the two atheist speakers.

It turned out that one of the two Christian speakers is going to be - guess who! - our very own Dial-A-Flea, David Robertson.

I responded that I had no interest in debating David Robertson, since I'd had numerous encounters with him via this website and had read his book, and found him to be an aggressive, abusive, dishonest debater.

I later received an email from the would-be debate organiser saying, "I understand what you are saying that you don't personally like one particular person's style, but if I can (gently) say, there are some who might not like the style of other panellists who might be involved.... "

I thought this was very revealing, because at that point the organiser had no idea at all who the atheist panellists were going to be, let alone what debating style they might adopt (I was still thinking about the invitation at that point, and subsequently declined it). So the organiser had no reason whatsoever to think that the atheist panellists might be offensive. The only possible source of offence at that stage, therefore, had to be the panellists' views, rather than their style of debate.

Contrast this with my David Robertson comment, which was specifically about HIM and his ACTUAL debating style; and not about his views at all.

80. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178312 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 7:00 am

scottishgeologist: "Free Church Continuing"

It's no good. I simply can't stop myself thinking "Continuity IRA" whenever I hear this term. Not that far off the mark, I suppose, since I also always think of the Free Church Continuing as being what you might call the paramilitary wing of the church.

81. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178294 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 5:28 am

njwong: Thanks Paula for a very interesting link.

I'm glad you enjoyed it! What interested me about it is the way the writer's prejudices have so clearly shaped his comments right from the very start. Now, don't get me wrong: we all view events through the filter of our own prejudices, I'm not denying that for a moment. But I think most fair, educated people are aware of that danger, and therefore go out of their way to make an honest attempt to achieve some kind of objectivity.

Not Donald Boyd, however. From his opening sentence ("The archbishop was in town and his disciples came to meet him.") he's in classic Abuse-for-Jesus territory.

The oh-so-tedious religious terminology is thrown around generously - "followers", "evangelising" - presumably these writers still think this is witty and original.

According to Boyd, I am not a "local atheist", but a "local atheist activist", which intrigued me rather, since it's not a term that I use to describe myself, and UHI didn't introduce me that way either. I can't help feeling he's added the word "activist" for its somewhat pejorative overtones, rather than out of any desire for accuracy.

Then we have the downright misrepresentations: "Like a skilled evangelist, Richard Dawkins made his dogmatic assertions with boldness. Possibly he hoped that no-one would notice the difference between assertion and fact; like the speaker's marginal note 'argument weak, shout loudly'" Now, the video of the event is available on this site and elsewhere, and we've all heard Richard speak in other videos too - have you ever heard him use the "shout loudly" technique? I suppose we should be grateful for the acknowledgement that "skilled evangelists" make dogmatic assertions and for the implied criticism of that.

The next quote particularly reveals his bias: "What surprised me was the number of childish titters at what were thought to be good points." Audience laughter becomes "childish titters". "Childish", presumably, because Donald Boyd didn't like it.

I could go on and on, but it's a long review, so I'll stop with just one more quote: "One questioner could understand apes evolving into humans but not bacteria into humans. This gave Dawkins an opportunity to demonstrate the fertility of his imagination as he mimed some of the evolutionary process."

What Boyd is describing here was actually one of the most impressive parts of the event - actually, one of the most impressive things I've ever seen Richard do: condense 4 billion years of evolution into about 3 minutes! It prompted an utterly spontaneous outburst of applause, and a number of people have commented on it to me since. Boyd rejects evolution, and therefore is content to dismiss the products of science and learning with the claim that they're all down to the "fertility of the imagination". Not based on his study of evolution, you understand - but simply on his faith.

Was this a man who listened to Dawkins' arguments with an open mind and attempted a fair and balanced portrayal of the event? I think not.

82. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178256 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

stereoroid: Honestly, I don't care whether it's a church, or a state regime, or a cult, or whatever, regardless of what they believe or not. Any time people are lied to, coerced, prevented from constructive free expression, or indoctrinated from a young age, I want it to stop. If we get that cleared up, the rest is details...

Well said, Stereoroid. I think that should become the RD.net motto.

83. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178247 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:27 am

Just in case anyone's interested in a completely DIFFERENT take on this event, this is the review posted on www.christianstogether.net:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=112791

Written by the man who, during the Q&A session, tried to claim the book of Daniel as an example of fulfilled prophesy and, consequently, proof of God's existence, it is, as you might expect, not altogether positive ;-)

84. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178244 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:10 am

Ichneumonid: no wonder David Robertson has been so keen to portray himself as the fearless slayer of atheists on this site and elsewhere - his own constituency seems to be deserting him!

This article is specifically about the Church of Scotland, and David Robertson is with the Free Church of Scotland. Confusing, I know. Then there's the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the Free Presbyterians, and a myriad others - none of which would exist as separate entities, of course, if they had been able to resolve their disagreements in the past! So the very existence of all these many, many churches is a nice illustration of their inability to resolve conflict - the very issue being highlighted by this article.

But even though the article isn't about the Free Church of Scotland, the issues raised will apply there too. The FCoS has traditionally been a very strict, stern, fundamentalist church - but there are signs of a more liberal faction trying to exert influence now. (Believe it or not, David Robertson is one of them.) I think there can be no doubt that there will be tears before bedtime there too.

85. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178240 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:00 am

What an interesting article.

There's a lot here, though, that has always been happening. Church ministers have always been in a rather difficult position: adored by parts of their congregations, loathed by others. And any minister who tries to introduce changes of any kind whatsoever has always been asking for trouble.

Check out any church, and the biggest disputes are not about matters of doctrine (although up here in the north of Scotland the issue of bible literalism is pretty fundamental), but about whether to replace the pews with chairs; whether to change the style of music used in services; whether to use a more modern form of liturgy (they CLAIM that the objections are doctrinal, but they're not really: they're just about resistance to change); even whether to move the church outing or church fete from its regular spot on the second Saturday in July, or whatever.

One of the things we rarely discuss when debating people's reasons for continuing to believe in God and go to church is the sheer, soothing familiarity of the routine - and yet I think it's actually a very important factor. Anything that is predictable and has a particular, dependable pattern can be rather hypnotic, comforting, reassuring. No surprises. No jolts. Nice and safe. And let's not forget that, in the UK, at least, congregations consist overwhelmingly of older people, who have a tendency to be even more resistant to change than the rest of us. So a new minister; or an old minister who's read a new book; or a new style of service; a new hymn book; a new style of music; chairs arranged in a new formation; coffee served before rather than after the service - almost anything can trigger huge resentment.

I think many people are change-resistant anyway; but it all gets far more heated in churches, because there's the accelerant of people believing that THEIR way is God's way. (Or perhaps they don't really believe this - perhaps it's just a means of adding weight to their own wishes.) The question of, say, a new hymn book rapidly escalates into "But God finds this modern rubbish offensive" vs "God needs us to move with the times." When people start acting as though they're speaking for God, a certain amount of intransigence is inevitable.

Add to this the fact that congregations are small, pretty intense communities, and that small, intense communities are nearly always prone to in-fighting and bitchiness, and the recipe for conflict is complete.

Towards the end of my time as a Christian one of the many things that troubled me was the recognition that churches are home to far more petty squabbles than the outside world, and far more spitefulness and downright nastiness too.

The professional mediators are going to have a hell of a job on their hands! Wouldn't it be fun to watch ;-)

86. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177759 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm

CJ22: The idea that secular society is engagesd in silencing the church(es) is ridiculous. They're free to start their own TV channel if they wish to - it's not like they don't have enough money.

I don't want to take this thread off-topic, but it's interesting that you should mention the money, CJ. Just today in the NSS's weekly newsletter there was a very interesting mini-article about the Church of England's investments:

Credit crunch? Not for us, says CofE â€" we've got money coming out of our ears â€" so we'd better put in for another grant from the taxpayer
The Church commissioners â€" the trustees who manage the assets of the Church of England â€" this week published news of record profits from investments for 2007. The 33-strong board announced overall returns of 9.4 per cent on their investments last year and a 9.5 per cent total return on invested funds over the past 10 years.

The commissioners will report that the value of assets under their management has grown to £5.67 billion and that their fund, which is a closed fund accepting no new investment, has been able to return £37 million more each year to the Church over the past decade than it would have done if it had performed at the industry average.

Reporting this news, the Daily Telegraph said "Congregations should not start planning for new roofs and church halls, however, as the commissioners say that their funds contribute just 17 per cent of the total running costs of the Church of England â€" the balance being made up from the pockets of congregants and Diocesan investments."

Oh, (the reporter and the commissioners forgot to mention) and hundreds of millions from the taxpayer.

Despite having this fantastic stash (and that is only a small proportion of its total wealth, which is tied up in property, such as shopping centres and farmland) the Church of England continues to sting the taxpayer for church repairs, gigantic tax concessions, grants from statutory bodies, subsidising of its 'chaplaincies' in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces, and hundreds of millions ploughed into church-run schools.

However, despite all this, the Church continues to plead poverty, whingeing about a growing pension bill for retired clergy. It is also agitating to be exempted from paying water bills (a change in the way this is levied means that suddenly the church has to pay its way like everyone else.) Yesterday representatives of the Church of England, Methodist and other churches met officials from Ofwat, the industry regulator, to argue that they shouldn't have to pay for the water they use in the same way that everyone else does. After all, they've only got £6 billion in the bank.

You could almost feel sorry for them, couldn't you? OK, perhaps not.

87. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177754 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Fides: The five minutes that faith gets in a 3 hour current affairs programme caters to a large proportion of the nation. I guess that's why it's there

Large proportions of the nation enjoy gardening. DIY. Cookery. Pets. Sudoku. Shopping. Going to the gym. Do any of these interest areas get a ring-fenced, protected, unchallenged slot in the flagship national news broadcast every single day? I think not. It is religion, and ONLY religion, that is granted such a privilege. And then it has the sheer affrontery to claim that it is being excluded from public life.

88. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177752 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Fides: Paula, it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Will you address the points I've made or continue your avoidance? Was i correct when I posted;

blah blah

I've already explained why this is NOT correct in the context we are discussing.

Fides, I had you down as one of the more sensible of the theists who post on this site. My apologies. I was obviously confusing you with someone else.

89. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177744 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Fides: So Paula, when you said 'Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', what you meant to say was 'Richard Dawkins was given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', because of course this is where the evidence leads us.

No, you are confusing ACHIEVING a public forum with BEING GIVEN a public forum. Day after day, week after week, religion is GIVEN free access to our airwaves. Unchallenged. Richard Dawkins, by dint of years of hard work acquiring a reputation as an advocate of science and reason, ACHIEVED the opportunity to create a single series challenging religion's place in society. I realise you are in obtuse mode this evening, but perhaps even you can see the imbalance here.

There has been a campaign for many years now to get Thought for the Day removed from the Today programme. It has no place there: the Today programme is a NEWS programme, for goodness' sake. Yet every single day a religious speaker gets a slot in which s/he makes claims that are utterly unsubstantiated, and S/HE IS NEVER CHALLENGED ON THEM. Never. And, despite a vociferous and continued campaign to get rid of it, the BBC clings to it determinedly. There is absolutely no other topic that is accorded such a privilege.

Of course, there's a lot more than 3 programmes worth of evidence as I mentioned. I suppose it's as inconvenient to include these in your equation as it was to exclude the word 'not' from your previous sentence.

You were specifically talking about Richard Dawkins' exposure in the British media opposing religion. So what other programmes do you think he's made on this subject? And how do they even begin to balance the DAILY religious broadcasts that have been going on for decades?

Incidentally, what's RD's evidence for his views on Mendel?

I don't know, Fides. The point is, if he were to make that claim on the Today programme, John Humphrys would leap down his throat and demand that he substantiate it. Unlike the Cardinal, whose lecture included claim after claim about God, but who wasn't challenged to provide a single iota of evidence. This is the whole point.

90. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177728 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Fides et Ratio: Where is this world where the national media fail to criticise religious figures? HELLO, THERE'S A LINK ON THIS SITE TO A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER CRITICISING THE CARDINAL AND HIS LECTURE. In what seriousness can you possibly make the point that, on the one hand he is not criticised because he is a Cardinal, and on the same site have a link to a Guardian article that criticises him? Is this reason? By the way, this is not addressed to any specific follower but to all Dawkins' disciples who share Paula's view.

Sigh. We are talking about the interview on the BBC Today programme this morning. Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL? Why was he given at least twice the length of time to put his views across as Richard was to oppose them? Why was he given the prime 8.10 a.m. slot? Why didn't John Humphrys ask him how on earth he can possibly know any of this stuff, when we all know perfectly well that, had it been a politician advocating Plan A over Plan B, Humphrys would have started arguing with him before he'd got his first sentence out?

"Hitler and Stalin"? "Dawkins' disciples"? Are you planning to wheel all the tired old clichés out tonight, Fides?

91. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177720 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Fides et Ratio: What about 'The Root of All Evil' or even the countless invitations to discuss the subject on TV, the wireless, and in the print?

What about them? What is a single series of, what, 3 programmes arguing against religion, compared with year after year of the daily service on BBC radio, Songs of Praise on BBC TV, Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4, Prayer for the Day on BBC Radio 4, and an equivalent slot on BBC Radio 2? Every single day religion is given an uncritical airing by our national, taxpayer-funded broadcaster. Religion is anything but excluded from national debate.

Belief exists, it works, many share it, the Cardinal is a spokesman for a large number of believers. The evidence for his thoughts is well substantiated in the text with references to St. Paul, TS Eliot, de Lubac, Pope Benedict and stoic philosophy.

Ah yes, as I thought. You seem to be having some trouble with the word "evidence".

Incidentally, on the subject of evidence, is it right that Dawkins has claimed that Mendel was a priest because it enabled him to study biology?

Are you telling us you haven't read The God Delusion, Fides? Yes, this is offered as a suggested explanation in chapter 3. It's a nice example of what we're talking about, actually, in that you've never heard Richard invited to discuss this opinion on national radio. Why not? Because it's clearly just opinion. When a Cardinal spouts his opinion, however, it's given the prime 8.10 a.m. slot normally reserved for leading politicians.

Remember what we're talking about here: NOT the right to hold opinions, NOT the right to express them, NOT the right for them to be heard; but simply why it is that religious opinion is allowed to pass unchallenged in our media (specifically the BBC in this case), whereas every other kind of opinion is either ignored or subject to rigorous challenge.

As for your point about the Cardinal being the representative of many people who believe - so what? Who cares? There are many people who are racist, but what are the chances of the leader of the BNP (translation for non-British readers: British National Party - the most right-wing part we have) being given the prime slot on the BBC Today programme and not being challenged on his claims? None whatsoever, I'm happy to say.

92. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177696 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Fides et Ratio: Paula. We've both read the lecture. Can we agree that it is a response to Richard Dawkins et al? If so, as representative of the largest group of practising Christians in this country, shouldn't he be given a public forum to respond to the man who was given a public forum to criticise his beliefs?

Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity. He wrote a book which clearly resonated with very many people and consequently sold well and has had influence. This is market forces at work. There was no free pass involved. Had his book not found a market, no one would be remotely interested in his views on the topic.

Richard's point this morning (and mine this evening) was, in any case, not that the Cardinal should not be heard, but that, having been heard, he should be subjected to the same kind of challenge that anyone other than a religious speaker would be subjected to. No one else would be permitted to make the kind of assertions that the Cardinal makes in his speech without being asked to provide the evidence for the assertions. Yet the Cardinal makes statement after statement about the nature of God, the alleged truth of God's existence, the alleged need of humans for God, the dire consequences for humans of not believing in God - and no one (except Richard!) stands up publicly and says: "Whoa. How do you KNOW? What are you basing this stuff on? Where's your EVIDENCE? Why should we take any notice of you at all? Aren't you just indulging in wishful thinking here?"

No one is saying that the religious should be banned from the debate. Just that the playing field should be level and that religious claims should be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as any other type of claim. It's really very hard to understand why you should have a problem with this, unless, of course, you share my doubt that religious claims would be able to stand up to the challenge.

93. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177680 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Fides et Ratio: Hello Northern Bright, I thought you'd retired from the forum.

No. Just using my real name these days.

You seem to be suggesting that only Richard's view should be covered in the national media, and not the response of those he attacks. If this is your stance or an accurate portrayal of RD's stance, I think it adds more substance to the Cardinal's idea of how athiesm can lead to Hitler/Stalin figures. Those who will brook no debate. Not only do you not agree with what he says (fair enough), but you profoundly disagree with his right to say it.

I seem to be suggesting nothing of the sort. You asked for clarification of what Richard was objecting to. I gave it. He was objecting to the fact that theologians are not required to substantiate their claims, whereas everyone else is.

Like everyone else, the Cardinal is entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to express his opinion. UNLIKE everyone else, however, his opinion gets taken seriously by the national media, despite the fact that he has nothing whatsoever with which to back it up.

Drawing attention to this glaring inequality in the ways in which religious and non-religious claims are treated by the media is in no way a precursor to a re-run of the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, and you know it. Shame on you.

94. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177660 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Fides et Ratio: Is Dawkins saying that the Cardinal's views are treated deferentially because of his faith, in which case is he unaware of the criticism his views on, for example, family life and abortion receive in the media. Or is he criticising the fact that his views are given coverage solely on the basis of his position as a man of faith?

Have you read the full text of the Cardinal's lecture, Fides? It is full of unsubstantiated declarations - statements for which there is no foundation whatsoever, other than that they're what the Cardinal has been taught to believe.

Richard's point is that there is literally no other field of human endeavour in which statements made in the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever would ever be taken seriously. Yet the Cardinal can pontificate to his heart's content at Westminster Cathedral, with not a shred of evidence to support his views, and be taken seriously enough to be featured pretty prominently on a national news programme the next morning.

Religion is given a free pass. And it shouldn't be. It should be treated the same as every other field of human enquiry and be required to demonstrate the truth of its claims before being given a place in public discourse.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171223 by Paula Kirby on April 28, 2008 at 11:25 am

DickDawkins: What I don't get is why atheists don't admit that atheism is a religion. You guys have your messiah(Dick Dawkins) and your holy book (God Delusion and sequels). Smells like religion to me especially since you guys think he's infallible and are willing to suck his schlong.

Aaaaah, isn't he sweet? Who could fail to respond to the transforming power of Jesus's love when we see how wonderful its effects have been on this dick. Sorry, I mean Dick.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170882 by Paula Kirby on April 28, 2008 at 5:50 am

Melissa:

We are born sinners.

How do you know?
What does it even mean?

Sin entered the world through the deception of Satan to Adam and Eve.

How do you know?
How do you know that Satan exists?
How do you know that Adam and Eve existed?

You presumably wouldn't dream of taking at face value something written in, say, Aesop's Fables. You wouldn't, for instance, truly believe that the sun and the north wind ever really had a competition to see who could make a man take his coat off first, would you? Not simply on the basis that it was written down in an old book, anyway. You'd need independent corroboration of it.

And even though you would doubtless find plenty of examples in real life that mirrored the moral of the sun/north wind story in Aesop's Fables, you still wouldn't see those examples as evidence that the story itself actually happened as described in the book. There's really no reason to treat the bible any differently in this respect.

It's not surprising if parts of the Adam and Eve story "make sense" to you and appear to be reflected in the way humans interact with each other - that doesn't point to its being literally true as told. After all, if the Adam & Eve story emerged the way I believe it emerged - through one group of Bronze Age humans trying to make sense of the world being a frightening place to live, of the fact that we all die, and of the fact that life can be very hard - then the story is by definition rooted in a human understanding of the world, and so it is no wonder if you read it now and relate to it.

This does not make it true, any more than the fact that most of us can relate to a good love story means that Romeo and Juliet must be true.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169918 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 4:50 am

riandouglas: Being new to posting, and likely to be going back to hiding after today,

Oh no, please don't do that. Your posts have been great. Why leave us now?

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169883 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 3:30 am

4837. Comment #169831 by Styrer- on April 26, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Sorry, Styrer, I think you're getting a bit carried away here. I don't think Melissa has written anything to merit that response. Of course her views strike us as ignorant and, in the case of her attempted justification for acts of gross divine barbarity, repugnant. But there are many, many, many Christians out there whose beliefs are based on precisely this kind of woolly, emotional, ill-defined, illogical, ill-thought-through approach. They need to be argued with too, and where better for that to happen than on RD.net? Why should we want to drive such a person away?

Melissa seems to be a new arrival on this site. She's not being abusive, she's not trolling (unlike so many of her Christian predecessors in here) - she's trying to explain why she feels that her belief in her god is justified. And the guys in here are making an excellent job of pointing out how internally inconsistent and unsubstantiated that belief is.

The arguments are so old and familiar to us, I suppose it's natural for us to react with irritation sometimes; but there are an awful lot of people out there who simply haven't heard them. At least Melissa's put herself in a position where she now WILL hear them and, for as long as she is willing to engage in real discussion, I don't see why we should have a problem with that.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169875 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 2:52 am

I am a Christian. I have been since I was five years old. I was not brain-washed.

Isn't it part of the definition of successful brainwashing that its victim not aware of the fact?

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169873 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 2:48 am

Mesomodel: In case anyone had any doubts about txpiper:

http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1412;sa=showPosts

Oh dear. Can anyone (preferably someone reasonably SANE) please tell me why so many people are so completely obsessed with all this End Times stuff? Why has it taken hold of so many people's brains (or what passes for them)? Even in my Christian days I could never see the book of Revelation as anything more than the disturbed outpourings of a disturbed and quite probably drugged mind.