51. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91157 by BaronOchs on November 27, 2007 at 12:33 pm

People should pick the Catholic League up on every occassion they style themselves a catholic "civil rights" organisation. Hardly any of Bill Donahue's fascist bullying, and this golden compass thing is a case in point has anything to do with civil rights for catholics. Which of course are as important as civil rights for anybody, and historically in protestant countries catholics have often been disenfranchised (needless to say you're better off as a believer in a secularised country than in one dominated by a different religion). Maybe the League at one point did good work in this regard, but nowadays they should be renamed the Campaign for a Catholic Theocracy or something.

I think people have already pointed out the irony in the idea you can religiously indoctrinate children but can't make a movie with vaguely anti-religious themes. If there's any position that justifies that perhaps it would be absolute relativistic tribalism, perhaps thats how Bill Donahue sees himself?

Also SilentMike I think movies do matter, especially when they are token cases of the freedom of speech.

52. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91147 by BaronOchs on November 27, 2007 at 12:14 pm

If all said here is correct it suggests the mormon racism thing is at least a little more complex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

53. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91142 by BaronOchs on November 27, 2007 at 12:02 pm

mejdrich

I'm a little curious as to why our misgivings are bothering so many, here. Do some of you think that any critique of Sam Harris is disloyal, or some kind of tactical error?

No I think the opposite. Surely the objection to the comment seem to assume Sam (or anyone) is a sort of representative of an atheist movement with obligations regarding what he should and shouldn't say. Like obviously Americans would be rightfully annoyed if George Bush stated "all in all China is just darned better than us" even if it was true. But surely that's not the case here, he didn't say "Warren may convince me christians are more moral than *my fellow atheists*".

Of course perhaps you've a point that Warren may well raise a lot of money because he's convinced a lot of people to put their cash at his disposal, using the religious claims we oppose! Maybe exploiting this to ensure Hirsi Ali's safety is an end that justifies the means?

54. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91115 by BaronOchs on November 27, 2007 at 9:26 am

mejdrich I'm not at all confused about what sam is "upto". He's just upto presenting the various arguments that he does indeed present, call it atheism or samsays or whatever. The comment was probably just gratitude and humour but it is also correct. If significantly more came in donations from christians that would suggest they are more generous and engaged. (well it could mean other things, perhaps they have more money or a cynical motive for donating or . . .etc you get the idea.)

55. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90823 by BaronOchs on November 26, 2007 at 1:16 pm

the paypal thing was registered with "sam@samharris.com", but this address doesn't exist, his address is "sam@samharris.org".

Has this been rectified?

56. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90458 by BaronOchs on November 25, 2007 at 7:43 am

steve that's cool it's not an agenda for me I just agree to differ.

[Edit: also lets not forget surestart, they gave us surestart! :-)]

57. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90447 by BaronOchs on November 25, 2007 at 7:15 am

steve99 I agree that all those things are good apart from the hunting ban. Not that I've any desire to hunt myself but the ban crippled livelihoods and besides foxes are still being killed. Farmers would love foxes to go extinct. The Countryside Alliance on the other hand did at least some work to preserve fox habitats. In order that those foxes could be hunted. People who think that is ridiculous have far too cosy a view of the world IMO

58. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90367 by BaronOchs on November 24, 2007 at 8:33 pm

eXcommunicate and Styrer- yeah I just got that myself. So i presume the money is still in my account.

I guess in addition to all the other uhh "heat" this thing has generated, the last thing Sam needed was to not set up his paypal system properly!

59. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89990 by BaronOchs on November 22, 2007 at 10:30 am

keith, yes now you mention it I recognise your avatar from rising damp and i had wondered. Though i was actually wondering after the weird guy in mumbles avatar which i recognise but can't remember where from.

Baron Ochs is the overweight incompetent womaniser from Strauss' Der Rosenkavalier. Though I'm not really a fan of Strauss or that opera and i hope i don't actually resemble the original Baron Ochs! So I don't know, the name is just an "evolutionary artefact" perhaps?!

60. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89966 by BaronOchs on November 22, 2007 at 8:33 am

keith it explains in the comment posting guidelines:

URLs (links)
All URLs will automatically generate an html link if they start with 'http:' or 'www'. Each comment is limited to 5 URLs per post to prevent spamming. If you would like to enter a very long URL, please go back and edit the comment after it is posted, and reduce the displayed text for the link. For example:

http://www.verylonglink.com" target="_blank">http://www.verylonglink.com
Can be changed to:

http://www.verylonglink.com" target="_blank">CLICK HERE
This will make it so the comment only displays the words 'CLICK HERE' in stead of the whole URL. Some browsers have trouble wrapping the huge URLs and push the boxes to the right to accomodate the link. Please help us keep the pages uniform.

The automatic linking only works on new comments, so once you've posted a comment you may edit the link (or add new html links) without this feature.

mumbles where is that avatar from I've definitely seen it before but can't remember where?! cheers.

61. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89886 by BaronOchs on November 22, 2007 at 3:37 am

ridelo don't know if this is any help? I'm a fast typer :-)

Hitchens: No, its a failure of my profession if this has to be done surreptitiously I don't know what was being asked on these so-called push poll questions but it should be a question the governor has to answer, I'll tell you what they are in descending order if you like:

Until 1979 you couldn't be black and be a deacon/elder of the Mormon church, you couldn't play any role in it at all, it was an officially racist organisation. Sen. Birds had to answer questions about that, he was a klansman in his youth,
Mitt Romney was a grown man in 1979 he should be asked: what is it like to be a member of an officially racist organistaion?
In what way are you glad that's changed . . if you are glad?
Stop saying that we're not allowed to ask these questions and that it is unamerican to ask. The Mormons had to be told they were unamerican when they practiced polygamy and they weren't allowed Utah as a state of the union until they changed that. It's blowing smoke to pretend otherwise. There are some other less important questions, do the elders of the church have extra legal authority? in other words are they divinely inspired, as we are told they are can they tell you to do something that is otherwise against the law?
It's an important question for someone who wants to be an upholder of the constitution.

Cavuto:So he should a jack kennedy thing and state his separation from the Vatican or the equivalent mormon thing . . .?

Hitchens: Yes it's the very least he can do, he has told us he believes the garden of eden used to be in missouri and will be again when Jesus returns and splits the mount of olives in two. .

Well I think that's a crackpot belief . .it doesn't have any dangerous implications for the constitution but . . .i think it's something we're entitled to know . . .

Cavuto: Hang on a minute Christopher you're an atheist and you're going to come in here with some vested argument against Gvnr Romney to begin with.

Hitchens: As a matter of fact you're quite right, I think all religions are in a sense equally absurd. But I think many people would be startled to think there is, trying for the highest office in a land which has a secular constitution and a separation of church and state, someone who thinks the garden of eden was in missouri but that's the least of it, the critical thing is the mormon church was an officially racist organisation when he was an adult -that's very important- it has elders it believes to be divinely inspired, that needs to be clarified

Cavuto: So when he says he's a christian that's not good enough for you?

Hitchens: what do you mean not good enough for me? I'm not the one he has to please, if he's willing to answer the questions . .the name of the church is jesus christ of the latter day saints, It's not my problem I'm not a christian but I think those who are must find it very insulting, and i'd say they have every right to that an imposter and a fraud named joseph smith says I've improved on jesus christ and the old testament but [end]

62. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89797 by BaronOchs on November 21, 2007 at 6:15 pm

"the vote that followed approved the proposal of the mormon jesus . . "

lol! hilarious

[also Galactic Lord Xenu vs Mormon Jesus! I want to see that fight!]

63. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89546 by BaronOchs on November 21, 2007 at 4:14 am

I've contributed. Perhaps not for any ethical reason, I just know how angry I would be if she was left without security and got killed.

64. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89428 by BaronOchs on November 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm

There needs to be a primetime documentary taking a critical look at all these mormon teachings and their implications for Romney's candidacy.

In Britain this would undoubtedly be undertaken by either Panorama or Dispatches. I don't know what the U.S. equivalent is? Of course in the UK a mormon running for office would get plenty of scrutiny anyway. See for instance the criticism of Ruth Kelly and her Opus Dei involvement.

65. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89414 by BaronOchs on November 20, 2007 at 3:55 pm

That interviewers logic was a picture. Hitchens' gives a perfect breakdown of why Romney's Mormonism is problematic and he responds "b-but hang on you're against all religion! I'm not having nothing to do with this!"

66. Getting Overheated

Comment #89410 by BaronOchs on November 20, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Fry is a global treasure. I'd take a bullet for 'im 'nyhow.


crazy old man do you mean you're aware of a specific scientific result/speculation that a reduction in carbon emissions, for instance, might have a negative consequence?

67. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89031 by BaronOchs on November 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm

They then said that it considered offences may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme, specifically in stirring up racial hatred.

Good. Race hate laws exist for good reasons. All the more reason why misusing them like this to persecute channel 4 is an abuse. Any other outcome than this would have been very worrying.

68. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88919 by BaronOchs on November 19, 2007 at 7:07 am

"In the event that money remains after these costs have been met, it will be used to encourage and protect other dissidents in the Muslim world."

___________________________

In the unlikely event indeed, donations will probably fluctuate so a fair amount of surplus should sensibly be put in a sinking fund.

69. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88911 by BaronOchs on November 19, 2007 at 6:54 am

keith Salman Rushdie gets his security courtesy of Her Majesties Gvnmt unless I'm very much mistaken.

70. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88910 by BaronOchs on November 19, 2007 at 6:51 am

Logicel thanks for that video. I almost choked at the end though: "my family will keep you in my prayers", slightly ironic given the context. As well as when he said "you will most probably not die of natural causes". If she does keep her security it should be quite unlikely she will be hurt.

71. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88706 by BaronOchs on November 18, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Not that I doubt you but can you corroborate that denoir? Will the Netherlands continue to pay for her security indefinitely?

Otherwise though she shouldn't have to pay for it herself even if she is uhh well to do. It is like several million dollars a year.

72. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88362 by BaronOchs on November 16, 2007 at 7:33 am

clearthinker if intelligent design really was correct then within time id proponents wouldn't need to hanker after places in darwinist institutions. The centre of intellectual gravity would just shift towards their own institutions.

Evolution has been vindicated against ID again and again (in the wide world and on this site) if you know something everyone else doesn't good luck changing the world.

[Edit: perhaps "darwinist institutions" is playing a bit into steinian hands! Theories and syllabus matter do change in all kinds of subjects like I say if ID had stood up to scrutiny it could have become the new textbook orthodoxy.]

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

Comment #88286 by BaronOchs on November 15, 2007 at 6:41 pm

While Harris comes perilously close to validating the existence of religious experience

Why is the idea that certain experiences just obviously have to be explained with reference to the supernatural so persistent? I'm glad Sam Harris addressed this topic; perhaps in time it'll be less easy to wave in our faces like a trump card.

"The Inquisition at least allowed defendants the chance to recant—often many times."

Is he just being snide or does he really believe that denying someone their freedom of conscience is morally one up from actually killing them?

Ridiculous man.

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

Comment #88200 by BaronOchs on November 15, 2007 at 9:17 am

Afonso's aunt, Isabella Armando, said her family gave Mr. Ginga $270 in cash, candles, perfume and baby powder to treat Alfonso.

The most evil people in a situation like that are the people who make money out of it. This situation is fuelled by poverty and as a result they give even more of their scarce resources away to charlatans.

75. Holy communion

Comment #88023 by BaronOchs on November 14, 2007 at 7:15 am

It is delightful to see how unlikely consensus on a single interpretation is even for a simple cartoon.

Steve99 do you think that any image/text (or whatever) that you or someone else interprets as exploiting a stereotype of a particular group in a negative way should not be published?

That isn't the world I want to live in and I think I can say so without compromising on a commitment to equal rights.

76. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87714 by BaronOchs on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 am

The showed us a prayer mat with built in compass when I was at school. They come with a booklet of bearings from various cities and places.

77. The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

Comment #87382 by BaronOchs on November 12, 2007 at 2:22 am

How many followers a cult needs to be called a religion? Sorry, I could never figure out the difference between the two. (

octopus you would certainly notice the difference if you visited the local unification church, then the local anglican church.

Members of cults are completely consumed into the social world of the cult which seeks to control their entire lives. This isn't the case for practising members of religion in general.

Although I'd say religious groups lie on a level-of-control spectrum, to attempt a tentative outline.

liberal prostestants> catholics> evangelical protestants> 7th day adventists> mormons> moonies.

78. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87295 by BaronOchs on November 11, 2007 at 5:17 pm

kraut. no atheist apologist for faith me!

The large muslim population in Britain is not a wholly benign addition to a multicultural menagerie, but nor is it some army of insidious faith-based orcs welling up in our midst sharpening their axes.

Accepting a view of muslims as taking their first priority to be the establishment of sharia law and the conversion of the world is precisely what the radicals and quite often the leaders like Dr Bari want. Really we should be more intelligent and notice for most people, muslim or otherwise, even if they are quite devout, human and secular concerns take precedence in their lives. Of course this is not something believers are necessarily self-aware of. Most muslims growing up in britain today want the same things as their non-muslim neighbours, jobs, cars, housing, leisure and sociability. I say obstacles to acheiving these goals should be reduced for them and anyone else, regardless of issues related to their belief.

Even this muslim article (from 2004 but still relevant) points out 87% of muslims don't feel a problem with being British.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/contemporary/2003/10/Article01.shtml

79. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87273 by BaronOchs on November 11, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I disagree with the general drift of this thread. My initial reaction is to feel just a bit of warmth for someone who pulls themself of a farm in Dhaka to train as a pilot get a physics doctorate and, speaking as someone who has also worked for a short while with special needs children, done what is a rewarding and worthwhile line of work.

What is obvious from the article is the mind-numbing naivety of Dr Bari. As if the wonderful effects of practices like "assisted marriange" were obvious. Or British society could effortlessly adopt all these customs even if they were as natural and good as he thinks.

It is precisely because religious teachings get such an uncritical reception that an obviously intelligent man can come out with such ridiculous statements as these. Thus this goes to highlight the importance of consistently challenging religion and promoting reason. But I think Britain should try and become a place where as many people as possible can play a positive role in society and be at home. Muslims as much as anybody else and I don't think that should be conditional on their abandoning faith.

yeah so best wishes to y'all from the land of 4 million CCTV cameras, radical islam and detention without trial!

80. Holy communion

Comment #87144 by BaronOchs on November 11, 2007 at 10:25 am

Look at it more positively Dr Benway, like:

"Within under a century of the end of chinese foot-binding the new athe . .no i can't go on

81. Holy communion

Comment #87141 by BaronOchs on November 11, 2007 at 10:14 am

As I said, try and imagine your reaction if they were poking fun at Dawkins by drawing him as black, or asian...

If we lived in a world without racism I wouldn't have a problem but because there is still plenty of real racism you can't use it as a cartoon joke. The same is surely true about homophobia at the present time and perhaps for quite a while to come.

If it wasn't for the out'n'proud sign I'm not sure I'd be convinced this was really an anti-gay anti-dawkins cartoon though. I just took the rose cheeks and bluebirds as mocking his supposed naive optimism, i.e. if we'd just abandon religion a golden age will bloom.


and these are some allright cartoons:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

82. Holy communion

Comment #87129 by BaronOchs on November 11, 2007 at 9:21 am

Dr Benway Chinese footbinding finally dwindled away in about the 1920's.

On other matters what do you mean your gaydar gives false positives in Britain lol! I'm not bothered by the cartoon, british newspapers tend to feature crude cartoons of politicians and other people in the public eye. I see no reason to bother about it myself.

83. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86569 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Mango that should by all means be the case!

84. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86564 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Now that was a good effort! I think Kant's ideas are still of much importance, but there are the well known difficulties. Not least his claim you can know a priori that the geometry of space is euclidean. When it isn't!

Kant was a fideist who argued god's existence cannot be demonstrated in any case, and I'd say that his fideism is the least likely position of his anyone would be persuaded to adopt nowadays.

85. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86380 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 5:45 am

From Kreeft:

Hell and heaven make life serious. Heaven without hell removes the bite from life's drama. C. S. Lewis once said that he never met a single person who had a lively faith in heaven without a similar belief in hell. The height of the mountain is measured by the depth of the valley, the greatness of salvation by the awfulness of the thing we're saved from.

I'm surprised christians do not find that problematic. The goodness of god, which souls in heaven are supposed to celebrate and participate in, is supposed to be an absolute goodness. Good in and of itself. So heaven should not need a corresponding bad place (or state) in comparison to which it is good.

To re-iterate, either the souls in hell are there of their own choice, in which case they could choose to leave. or they're there because god wants to keep them there regardless of their choices (or perhaps by fixing their wills), in which case they're not there by choice but are imprisoned there by god. Which raises questions about the goodness of god. You can't have it both ways.

[And I could turn that into a there their and they're fill in the blanks exercise!]

86. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86372 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 5:18 am

The Christian faith is warranted, not by warm fuzzy feelings, but by the evidence of the transformative impact that it has in the lives of individual believers and in society.

Lives and societies have and can be "transformed" by all sorts of things. I'm sure christianity has had a strong positive effect in many instances, as well as other cases were it has been . .less benign. Nothing however that merits the suggestion something that is supernatural simply must be at work.

There are perfectly earthly reasons for the effectiveness cultural or religious traditions can have. This would remain the case even if christianity had been more efficacious than it has in fact been.

87. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86353 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 3:27 am

ADH this is probably as good a place to conclude on Hell, unless you've anything more to say. My final comment on it is how can you possibly know the damned will prefer to remain in hell? We are back to the central problem of religious claims without any backing.

I don't personally think you have been a derailment or that you should bugger off. It makes life and these threads more interesting if there are people who disagree. In a civil and reasonable way that is, unlike Wee Flea etc!

88. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86339 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 2:16 am

Or perhaps let me put the dillemna I feel regarding these ideas:

1) God is the source of all good things. Therefore by enjoying or valuing anything in life we are covertly showing a desire for God.

or

2) God is good but this has nothing to do with other good things like the good taste of ice cream or the company of a loved one etc.

If one is true then pretty much everyone desires the presence of god in some way and hence could qualify for heaven. If two is correct then perhaps indeed only the devout make it to heaven, but all those things (ice cream, loved ones etc) that have nothing to do with god's presence can continue in hell, which isn't such a bad place. Of course the answer may well be god actively prevents this, fine, but then he is not a moral being.

89. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86335 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 2:00 am

"It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal." (cathen again)

Allright I'll stop now. I still don't understand this ADH. Why couldn't I develop my desire for "God's presence" after death? In which case it would no longer be my choice to remain separate from god yet the doctrine that hell is eternal says I'm there and that is that. In fact is there anything prior to (or of higher uhh pedigree) C.S.Lewis in anyway echoing this "locked from the inside" view of hell? As for heaven the fixation of the will has traditionally been taken to apply to souls in heaven as well. God doesn't give you a honeymoon period so you can decide if the other guys got a bit more swing.

90. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86323 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:46 am

Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject. . .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm (Part VI)

91. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86315 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:37 am

The proximate cause of impenitence in hell is God's refusal of every grace and every impulse for good. It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation. The opinion that the Divine refusal of all grace and of every incitement to good is the proximate cause of impenitence, is upheld by many theologians...

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

So not "locked from the inside" at all "souls" stay in hell because god wants them to even though he could act differently.

92. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86310 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:15 am

ADH

I suppose that for the moment there is not much we can do by way of stopping people from celebrating their disgusting religious rituals in their own homes. But soon consideration will be given to the poisonous effects of these rituals on the innocent children in the household. If subjecting children to these beliefs really is child abuse (which it obviously is) then someone somewhere will surely find a way of doing something about it.

I don't think anyone here is challenging the fact various celebrations and rituals may be worthwhile. What is under attack is that any such rituals need to be connected to beliefs that are unfounded or manifestly flawed [See my post 93].

On the subject of hell christian theology has traditionally taught the fixation of the will at death, hence why when it comes to it you're either in heaven or hell and you don't swap. Thus C.S. Lewis and his doors bolted from the inside is meaningles because they couldn't be unbolted.

This idea, that meaningful existence (in heaven) could continue with the will fixated is incoherent. See also my post 95, hell as separation from god is also an incoherent idea.

93. The Atheist

Comment #86207 by BaronOchs on November 8, 2007 at 5:17 pm

V I went away but I have returned! uhhh as you must have noticed . .

well clearly i was so sad to take for myself the first post on the first ever richarddawkins.net article even though it is drastically after the event lol!

94. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86164 by BaronOchs on November 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm

I've been reading some of the posts here to get the idea of this argument.

Does it basically boil down to we have to accept theism (actually it would be deism) or epistemological relativism, if we failed to refute the transcendental argument? Of course epistemological relativism may be the correct way to go in this case, it would avoid several problems we would still face in accepting deism.

95. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85959 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 3:24 pm

By the way Steve, you describe yourself as an ex-Christian and somehow you seem to feel that that has given you a unique understanding.

I don't read what steve99 said in that light. Merely that in retrospect he can admit clearly the language of personal relation was a significant stretch on the truth. As a once believing christian I can say the same thing.

Perhaps Christians get round this partly by telling themselves of course it would/will be much more personal when I'm stronger in the lord etc. Hence its not the personal relationship with god, but themselves at fault.

96. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85930 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm

R.E ADH post 94-

ADH like I say I believe the "hell as separation from god" theory is incoherent and I welcome what arguments you have to convince me otherwise.

Regarding the personal relationship with god I have an idea for something I'd like to see attempted sometime, though not necessarily by us here.

Someone should write an account of a relationship that would generally be acknowledged as "personal" in a strong sense by people whether atheist or believer.

Then (this may be more difficult than it first sounds) the central criteria in virtue of which it is called personal should be isolated.

Finally a christian should write an honest (determining how credible it is would be a second difficulty) account of their "relationship with god" which could then be analysed as to whether it fulfils the criteria of being personal.

Perhaps this would fail but it potential would test my view that christians are being unpermissably vague referring to their religious experiences in terms of personal relationship.

97. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85924 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 1:40 pm

88. Comment #85893 by D'Arcy on November 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

ADH writes:


On the issue of eternal separation from God, well it is actually what atheists want, is it not?

__________________________

Isn't all existence supposed to be grounded in god (according to christianity etc)? So by that theory separation from god would mean non-existence. and equally on this view atheists (most anyway) could be said to desire union with god, simply because they are happy to exist. They've just got the theory of it all a bit wrong.

In which case why should atheists then be separated from god, simply because (understandably given the circumstances) they hadn't quite grasped the situation?

98. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85917 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 1:22 pm

If I were you I would keep your kids away from fantasy of every kind.

ADH I agree with you that if Atheism required an aversion to the imagination or imaginative literature it would be an impoverished position. Of course it doesn't.

Personally I think the imagination, and that includes the "mythical imagination" is a valuable thing. Dawkins suggests in Unweaving the Rainbow imagination can play an important role in science, for instance when Friedrich August Kekule discovered the structure of the Benzene ring after dreaming of a snake seizing its tail.

Imagine an atheist stops two people on the way to some holy week celebration and asks why they bother. The first says:

"The ritual and liturgy of good friday provide a means of confronting the fact of our mortality and confronting fear of death through the symbolism of the passion story. The celebration of easter provides symbolic expression to a new view of life in which death is no longer feared and self-acceptance no longer inhibited by aversion to mortality".

Or something like it. The second says:

"These celebrations connect us up to some mysterious metaphysical framework whereby grace is provided to us through the sacrificial death of christ and we are enabled to continue existence after physical death as a result."

I can see no atheist objection to the first, even though they may not value such a process themselves. The second of course raises many objections. This all illustrates that the problem is not the extent to which the imagination may be of worth, but the claim of real existence for imagined objects (religious in this case).

99. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85907 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 1:00 pm

O.P. = Order of Preachers. a.k.a.the Dominicans.

[ah dvespertillo i'm too slow!]

100. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85824 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 9:25 am

In the circle of Richard's fleas look at the book "A Catholic replies to Professor Dawkins". It's also by Thomas Crean O.P.

Is it the same book under two titles (i.e. one for america one for britain or something)?

[unless a lack of real inquisitions to co-ordinate is giving the dominicans too much surplus time to write books?]