151. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9097 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 4:10 pm

Sam Harris is extremely impressive. I have both his books on order and am hoping that he is as lucid in his writing as he is in person. How anyone, even the fundies, could take umbridge at this guy I do not know.

152. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9093 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 4:05 pm

If you are ugly Dawkins will tell you so.
Others will remark on how beautiful you are.
Yet others will skirt the issue altogether.

I think that there is a time and a place for all three approaches. However, we really need someone like Dawkins who tells it like it is because this least popular approach is the one that takes the most courage and for this reason very few people are prepared to man that gun.

153. Dawkins hits back

Comment #9076 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Not a bad summary

154. New CFI Office in Washington D.C.

Comment #9073 by Aussie on November 23, 2006 at 2:47 pm

It is a scandal that great and precious minds such as these have to be diverted away from the pursuit of knowledge into wasting time countering absolute crap.

155. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #8672 by Aussie on November 22, 2006 at 12:23 am

"... many people as have been killed in the name of atheism ..."

1) "Kill all Americans in the name of Allah!"

2) "Kill and torture heretics in the name of Jesus Christ!"

3) "Kill people in the name of atheism!"


1. Yes we hear this often today

2. Yes. This was the battle cry for 600 years of the Inquisition

3. Huh! Has anyone heard any examples of number three?

Maybe there have been atheists who killed people but not to my knowledge "in the name of atheism".

156. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8657 by Aussie on November 21, 2006 at 11:14 pm

This is probably an appropriate place to post an updated gospel.

The Gospel (Good News) According to St Richard:

There is no God
There is no Hell
There is no Devil
There is no Heaven (full of religious crackpots)
There are no Saints
There are no Angels
There are no miracles
There is no Purgatory
There is no original sin
There is no need for guilt
There is no need to confess
There is no need for penance
There is no eternal damnation
There is no Papal infallibility
There is no sin in contraception
There is no virtue in belief per se
There is no need to waste time praying
There is no religious patent on morality
There is no point in waiting for miracles
There is no need to waste time attending temples
There is no need to believe in preposterous myths
There is no inherent virtue in remaining ignorant
There is no need to reconcile religion and science
There is no need to waste time studying Holy books
There is no need for payments to a parasitic priesthood
There is no need to agonise over what is the "true" faith
There is no need to try to reconcile irreconcilable beliefs
There is no need to wrestle with self-contradictory scripture
There is no point in trying to understand an incomprehensible Trinity
There is no need to defer to clergy or grant special privilege to their beliefs
There is no need to analyse the competing claims of different religions and sects

There is in short no need to remain deluded

There is, however, ecstatic elation on liberation of the mind with lots of time now freed up to discover the beauty of the universe and to help our fellow man.

Now that IS Good News

157. Creating the 'Controversy' in Britain: Creationist Research Institute is on the march in the UK

Comment #8643 by Aussie on November 21, 2006 at 9:53 pm

I have often asked myself whether Nazism could ever have taken hold in the UK. I concluded long ago that I did not believe that it could as I regard the British generally as being far too individualistic and sophisticated to fall for facile demagoguery.

Similarly I have wondered whether the British could ever embrace creationism in the wholesale manner that it has become established across the Atlantic. For the same reasons to those above I concluded that it could not.

Being still of the same opinion I would be most disturbed if this creationist initiative made any real headway in Britain. If it did it would signal that even laid back, sceptical Australia might be vulnerable - something that I would not have thought at all possible.

158. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8231 by Aussie on November 20, 2006 at 5:15 pm

asdf,

I would add to your list another two that I consider probably the most important:

14. Promise of eternal life
15. Fear of eternal damnation

159. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8229 by Aussie on November 20, 2006 at 5:05 pm

This is true success in the Darwinian sense. Maybe these people have a point.

160. John Safran vs. The Mormons

Comment #8225 by Aussie on November 20, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Classic.

Safran is a legend here in Oz. He is noted for being embarrassingly irreverent.

161. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #7577 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 8:47 pm

We don't need names as much as motivators.

What drives the religious? Simple:

The promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell.
The promise of eternal life versus the threat of eternal damnation.

This is why those people keep knocking on your door.

They are pretty strong motivators. Until we come up with something comparable we will always be operating at a disadvantage.

162. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7569 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 8:20 pm

As I have said before, I can never understand why this hypothetical transcendent omnipotent being who has created the universe is always assumed to be a benevolent god. Please explain why a transcendent omnipotent devil is not a far more parsimonious "explanation" of everything than an omnipotent god. With that hypothesis you avoid the embarrassing circumlocutions required to apologise for the "creation" of HIV, ebola, parasitic wasps and hornets, Saddam, Hitler, widespread human starvation etc etc. A devious devil could even do "good" from time to time to deceive the gullible.

No! The hypothesised transcendent being is always assumed to be the God of the Bible. Poor Allah, Lord Brahma and even Satan never get a look in even though they represent a more plausible alternative.

163. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7401 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 1:23 pm

I think our chances of eliminating religion are about the same as those of eliminating war.

I wonder why.

164. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7276 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 3:29 am

"Not everyone (I'd even say the majority of the public) are wowed by the mysteries and the wonders of science. If we're to change that (and we need to consider if that's something that we should change) we have to change the mindset of the pubic at large from the most basic levels and reinvigorate the image of science to schoolchildren, which is a Herculean task. This will also take many years, possibly even decades."

I think that there is a lot of truth in this statement. I was brought up on a diet of Stephen Jay Gould. Many years ago my wife bought me my first Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker". She also more recently bought me "The Ancestor's Tale" and then "The God Delusion". I bought all the others. So far so good.

However, the interesting thing is that she has never read any one of them. I attribute this to a lack of any innate interest in the wonders of science. She will probably never read them.

However, not all is lost. My elder brother, an academic theologian, mystic and himself the author of 28 books, has recently ordered a number of Dawkin's books and has begun reading. Where this will end I do not know but he became intrigued by my enthusiam and wondered what all the fuss was about.

165. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7273 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 2:52 am

I'm an aetheist but .... I find this website and RD's books very therapeutic. I also really enjoy being in the choir.

Funny though, I cannot yet bring myself to admit out loud to anyone that I am an aetheist. I even wince when I write it as it sounds so absolutist and it goes against my natural tendency not to pidgeon-hole anyone - particularly myself.

Given few more years in the choir I might even be able to sing in tune.

166. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7271 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 2:31 am

I'm an atheist but ... I want to have my cake and eat it too.

167. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7264 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 1:16 am

If any of you besotted girls are ultimately unsuccessful in your quest for Richard, I would like to let you know that I am also a scientist, over sixty with a verrrry sexy Australian accent. Although not as wealthy as Richard, nor with an aristocratic lineage, I am nevertheless descended from genuine convict stock. Drop me an email if ever you get lonely.

168. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #7261 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 12:53 am

In contrast to many respondents here I found Eagleton's contribution both interesting and entertaining to read. His points should not just be dismissed outright with vacuous one-liners. In fact they might be worth following up had one both the time and energy.

However, the reality is that 90% of believers would not be able to understand the nuances and subtle distinctions that Eagleton is attempting to draw. Dawkins is not particularly concerned with benign academic aesthetes like Eagleton. He is more disturbed by the likes of people flying planes into buildings or US Presidents believing that God told them to invade Iraq.

The patient needs radical surgery and if effete hair splitters like Eagleton get excised with the main tumour then that is unfortunate but necessary.

Dawkins' broadbrush approach is exactly what is needed at this point in history and his "take no prisoners" strategy is preferable to pussyfooting around with academic subtleties.

Eagleton is most welcome to come back when the patient is well into convalescence.

169. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7233 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 8:08 pm

Lalla beware!!

170. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7229 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 7:55 pm

2000 years ago almost all religious bigots missed the First Coming. Now it looks as though today's bigots have similarly missed the Second Coming.

171. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7226 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 7:09 pm

What Richard needs to do to lift his game:

Develop an ear-to-ear toothpaste-ad smile.

Pace backwards and forwards across the stage during presentations raising the palms skyward at frequent intervals.

Periodically thump a dog-eared copy of Origin of Species constantly carried in his left hand.

Appeal for interactive responses from the audience. "How come we are all gathered here today!!" The answer "Natural Selection!!" "Come on everybody. Shout it out together!" "NATURAL SELECTION!!!"

Regularly threaten the audience with the certainty of intellectual necrosis, thermonuclear anialation, with eternal separation from the only life they will ever enjoy.

Accompany his presentations with trendy rock music

Walk amongst the flock, pushing them over one by one, decreeing that they are now cured from their delusions and its associated psychological damage.

Set up a series of "Inquisition Houses" to scare the living daylights out of small children, dramatising in horrific detail the suffering (burning at the stake, boiling in oil etc) that will be endured if we return to any form of Dark Age.

Institute a system of tithing to swell the RDF coffers and supplement this with occasional exhortations to "Give until it hurts".

Write his next book on the subject of dieting - "Slimming with Darwin"


Come on Richard you can do it!

172. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7213 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 5:37 pm

Positive press like this is a marketing godsend. What many aethiests and scientists also do not understand is that effective marketing is essential in gaining ground on the well-organised and well-financed opposition. It is even worth considering emulating the tactics of the televangelists who unarguably have a winning recipe for success.

Following on from the Ted Haggard debacle though we will have to be vigilant to ensure that Richard himself does not betray his public persona by becoming a closet Christian, attending clandestine revival meetings etc, to ensure his place in Heaven, while all his followers march inexorably to eternal damnation.

173. My God Problem

Comment #7204 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 4:18 pm

As a former research scientist of 30 years, much of which was spent chasing research grants, this brilliant article really hit home to me. Just as the democratic process corrupts polititians, so the research grants process tends to corrupt scientists.

"Honest politian" has always been an oxymoron.

"Objective scientist" is sadly becoming one also.

Most people accept that for a politian to survive in his particular ecosystem he must necessarily compromise any higher principles. Unfortunately the selection pressures on scientists mean that the objective scientist may soon become extinct.

Simple Darwinian selection.

174. My God Problem

Comment #7199 by Aussie on November 17, 2006 at 3:53 pm

A trivial semantic point:

Strictly speaking "peri" means "near" not "around". eg Perigee vs Apogee

Therefore "pericentury" is "near century".

One then wonders what "apocentury" might mean. Perhaps eternal life?

175. God's Gift to Kansas

Comment #7057 by Aussie on November 16, 2006 at 11:32 pm

"the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom"

Reading the article "A Fin is a Limb is a Wing" by Karl Zimmer in the latest National Geographic Magazine suggests that exactly the same genes are responsible for the development of the eye in so many very diverse creatures. Can we truly say that it "has evolved at least 40 times independently ..."

176. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7032 by Aussie on November 16, 2006 at 6:50 pm

My oldest and closest friend was a "Catholic child" while I was a "Protestant child". He naturally went to a Catholic school and I went to a State school. I learned to regard him as somehow inherently inferior to "us" - a form of untermensch. I assume his attitude to me was reciprocated as a result of the "facts" that he was taught. The insidiousness of the indoctrination has caused this irrational attitude of mine to persist into adult life - impervious to any attempt at intellectual purging. And yet he is still my oldest and closest friend. I have just had to learn to live with the subliminal prejudice in much the same way as many people do who suffer from a constant ringing in the ears.

We used to go together to a dance run by his Church and it was great fun until the Catholic Intelligence Agency received a clandistine report that a protestant was attending the dance. One day we rolled up as usual to go in but a Priest barred my way preventing me from entering because he said I was not a Catholic. My friend was allowed in but not me. So that was the end of that.

Years later my friend drifted away from the Catholic Church and became a notorious and extremely successful womaniser - much to my envy. He admitted that this behaviour was somewhat inconsistent with his beliefs but proudly announced that his one concession to his religion was that he never used contraception.

How ludicrous can you get!

177. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7028 by Aussie on November 16, 2006 at 6:06 pm

I wish Richard Dawkins would come over here to Oz as part of his book promotion tour and as a bonus he could catch up with his old mate Robyn Williams.

Prophylactic readings from TGD would go a long way in preventing us also slipping into the Dark Ages that appear to be engulfing the rest of the world.

178. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7025 by Aussie on November 16, 2006 at 5:45 pm

Peter,

Thanks. That was a good article. I always felt the whole idea was unconstitutional.

I think that it is also unworkable. Imagine a school which is fairly evenly divided between Catholics, Protestants and Muslims. How could all parties reasonably be expected to come to a consensus on the religious affiliation of their school "Chaplain". This is a recipe for open conflict.

179. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7002 by Aussie on November 16, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Interesting development here in Australia. Our PM, Johnny Howard, is pushing ahead with a scheme to introduce, and fund from the public purse, a system of school "Chaplains" to "counsel" students. Each school can nominate whatever religion they wish their own "Chaplain" to be. The peculiar thing is that it will not be possible to appoint professionally qualified secular counsellors as they are banned from the scheme.

Even more interesting is that Johnny appears not to be particularly religious himself, unlike Tony or George, but he obviously cynically sees a vote in appealing to the broad religious right whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims.

I thought that here in Australia we were being spared the worst of the excesses of the religious mania sweeping the rest of the world. But now I see both our major parties desperately positioning themselves to capture the "Christian" vote.

When will this madness stop.

180. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6866 by Aussie on November 15, 2006 at 11:20 pm

"An example of this came on the visit to Randolph-Macon Women's College. One young woman asked him about anger at being misled by childhood role models. His immediately glazed response seemed to indicate he couldn't understand why a person should feel angry."

I was also surprised at his response to a suggestion that I thought would have been obvious. My conclusion was that he either did not hear the question properly (as he was obviously having considerable difficult hearing and/or understanding the accents of many of the questioners) or he purposely feigned ignorance in order to draw her out to allow her to elaborate and make her point more forcefully. I certainly do not attribute it to any form of stunted personality disorder.

181. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6825 by Aussie on November 15, 2006 at 5:56 pm

The Gospel (Good News) According to St Richard:

There is no Hell
There is no Devil
There is no Heaven (full of religious crackpots)
There is no God
There are no Saints
There are no Angels
There is no Purgatory
There is no original sin
There is no need for guilt
There is no need to confess
There are no miracles
There is no point in trying to understand an incomprehensible Trinity
There is no need for payments to a parasitic priesthood
There is no need to believe in preposterous myths
There is no inherent virtue in remaining ignorant
There is no need to waste time studying Holy books
There is no need to waste time praying
There is no need to waste time attending temples
There is no point in waiting for miracles
There is no need to try to reconcile irreconcilable beliefs
There is no need to wrestle with self-contradictory scripture

There is no need to agonise over what is the "true" faith
There is no need to analyse the competing claims of different religions and sects
There is no need to reconcile religion and science
There is no need to defer to clergy or pay unjustified respect to their beliefs

There is no need to remain deluded

In contrast, however, there is elation at the liberation of the mind with lots of time freed up to discover the beauty of the universe and help our fellow

man.

Now that IS Good News

182. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6519 by Aussie on November 14, 2006 at 4:40 pm

I would have thought that they might have regarded it as a complement rather than an insult.

183. Why there is no God

Comment #6517 by Aussie on November 14, 2006 at 4:32 pm

It has occurred to me that we should require those who insist on intelligent design to explain why an omnipotent devil is not a far more satsfactory "explanation" of everything than an omnipotent god. With that hypothesis you avoid the embarrassing circumlocutions required to apologise for the "creation" of HIV, ebola, parasitic wasps and hornets, Saddam, Hitler, widespread human starvation, heretics, apostates, infidels etc etc. A devious devil could even do "good" from time to time to deceive the gullible. I would like to see the IDers explain why a designer god is a superior explanation to that of a designer devil.

184. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6185 by Aussie on November 13, 2006 at 3:28 am

David,

10 out of 10 for stamina and persistence.

Sorry I could not keep my promise to give you some assistance. This antipodean time zone is a bit of a handicap. Anyway you seem to be doing quite well on your own.

However, careful you don't end up with repetitive strain injury - not only in the upper limbs but also in the brain.

When you need a break from all this you are welcome to drop in to my house for some tea and cakes but make sure your wear your carefully polished shoes. I would also be interested to listen to one of your sermons at some stage.

Don't be overly concerned at the level of anger that you have correctly observed in my fellow atheists. In common with other people subjected to trauma a significant number of them are recovering from severe psychological damage inflicted by encounters with more extreme versions of "Christianity" which I am sure you abhor as much as I do.

I was one of the more fortunate recipients of a fairly mild religious education that I look back on now as not being entirely negative. Strangely I have even developed an ongoing interest in the history of the early Christian church.

Successful people have always fascinated me and no matter what you believe you have to acknowledge that Jesus was perhaps the most successful person who ever existed (or didn't exist). What I am intrigued about is why he was so successful. Was it that the whole Jesus story was inherently such a good yarn or was it that his marketing department over the succeeding few centuries developed a winning recipe that made it so successful.

Perhaps there is something there that we could learn.

185. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5793 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 4:51 am

Finlay,

But this lies at the heart of the issue. Three mutually exclusive (even antagonistic) propositions. I would be interested to learn why the Christian option is always assumed superior to the other guys'. The others are just as (indeed perhaps more so) convinced of their relationship with their god as the Christian is with his. Someone has to be deluded and why is it always the other guy.

186. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5789 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 4:16 am

".. to understand that the faith Christians have in God and Christ is not actually based on science, but on a personal relationship with God and Christ."

".. to understand that the faith Muslems have in Allah and the Prophet is not actually based on science, but on a personal relationship with Allah and the Prophet.

".. to understand that the faith Hindus have in Lord Brahma and Vishnu is not actually based on science, but on a personal relationship with Lord Brahma and Vishnu."

187. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5787 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 4:07 am

To commence my support of your position I would just like to say that I found your entire second paragraph quite to the point and except for your assertion below

"(nothing like wanting to indoctrinate children is there?)"

would not disagree with it as I had independently entertained similar thoughts to those that you have expressed. It was actually quite well written and rather amusing.

There are other parts of your essay with similar merit.

188. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5782 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 3:46 am

By the way just a small point.

"Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences – at least in non-Islamic countries?"

Although this comment is not central or essential to your main argument you must know that it is wrong. Apostates in several Christian sects such as the Exclusive Bretheren, to which my paternal grandfather belonged, frequently destroy the lives of those who leave the faith.

But don't worry. Even Dawkins made a few similar inconsequential errors in TGD but these do not materially detract from the thrust of his argument.

189. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5778 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 3:25 am

My initial reaction was "Is this guy for real or is it some jerk posing as David Robertson having a laugh by just trying to wind us all up".

On reflection it seems that he is genuine.

If so I would just like to complement you David on your effort (as such a post would have taken considerable time to prepare and present). Although I find much of your logic difficult to get my head around I did consider some of the points you raised as worthy of discussion to the extent that I would like to see them explored in a mutually non adversarial manner. It is rather difficult to do in a forum like this where you must feel beseiged on all sides. I would be prepared to fight along side you so you do not feel entirely alone. It is actually a very instructive experience to argue a position diametrically opposite that which you in reality hold.

You did manage to avoid an openly abusive stance even though much of your tone was distinctly patronising. In spite of these minor irritations I appreciate your input and must admit to genuinely enjoying reading it. Thank you for your considered contribution and keep any sequels coming.

190. Losing Our Religion

Comment #5774 by Aussie on November 11, 2006 at 2:45 am

Science will never be able to match the ultimate comfort that religion offers - the promise of eternal life.

It is, and will always be, a no contest.

191. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5714 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 3:31 pm

Robertson is typical of the parochial Western elite mentality, most common the USA, which ignores the competing beliefs of most of the rest of humanity as thought they don't even exist. What makes him think that his particular religion is superior to all others on offer.

If he insists that god exists it is then up to him to explain why the one he has chosen, or more likely has been born into, is the only one worthy of consideration

Robertson himself has to be a fundamental atheist with respect to Allah, Lord Brahma and the multitude of others that are available to choose from in the marketplace.

192. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5704 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 2:39 pm

Dawkins is not a fundamentalist.

A fundamentalist is 100% certain of his position.

Since Dawkins expresses his position in terms of probabilities and concedes that he is, say, 95% certain that there is no god he accepts that there is a 5% chance that his hypothesis could be wrong.

It would be interesting to see whether David Robertson would be prepared to concede that there is a 5% chance that he may be wrong. Very unlikely. That is the mark of a true fundamentalist. He doesn't just believe - he KNOWS.

193. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5699 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 2:09 pm

"I have not read Dawkins' book as yet, but I ..."

Might I suggest that it would actually help to have read the object of your criticism before making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

For many years I have had a fascination with the elegance of Darwinian evolution and its ability to explain so much of what we observe around us - while relying on so few assumptions. The most notable popular educators in this field have been the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I have impatiently awaited each of Dawkin's works as they have approached completion.

I must admit to being somewhat annoyed by this brilliant mind having been sidetracked into a scientifically unproductive effort to defend rationality from the scourge of mediaeval superstition. I am still hoping for at least one more great symphony on science before Dawkins finally hangs up his boots.

Before reading TGD I was informed by someone I greatly respect that this "preacher of atheism" was dangerous as he expounded on subjects of which he was both ignorant and uneducated. So I approached my brand new copy of this book determined to be as critical and as objective as possible and to uncover any defects in fact or logic that I could find.

Maybe my many intellectual limitations precluded detection of the glaring errors and inconsistencies that would have been obvious to someone more capable and informed than I, but in truth I could find nothing but well reasoned argument supported by compelling logic.

Nevertheless, I must admit that when I first came to this website I was at first unsettled by what appeared to be an emerging personality cult centred around Dawkins that was composed of people some of whom, unlike Dawkins, themselves appeared less than rational in their objections to religion.

However, I soon realised that to some extent this website is performing the function of a group therapy session where people who have been psychologically damaged by their previous exposure to religion can undergo a catharsis in an attempt to liberate themselves from the worst of its consequences. As a result some of the comment seen here will have the appearance of the irrationality one would expect from a damaged mind attempting to "cast out the demons".

194. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5604 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 4:12 am

What's wrong with religion?

1) My oldest and closest friend was a "Catholic child" while I was a "Protestant child". I learned to regard him as somehow inherently inferior to "us" - a form of untermensch. I assume his attitude to me was reciprocated as a result of the "facts" that he was taught. The insidiousness of the indoctrination has caused this irrational attitude of mine to persist into adult life - impervious to any attempt at intellectual purging. And yet he is still my oldest and closest friend. I have just had to learn to live with the subliminal prejudice in much the same way as many people do who suffer from a constant ringing in the ears.

2) I met and married a Catholic girl in Europe. When my maternal grandfather heard about it he hit the roof. "Why couldn't he have married a nice Protestant girl". The ironic thing about this was that I had never known him to attend a church of any kind. Fortunately when I brought her home to Oz his objections very rapidly melted away.

3) My paternal grandfather would not let me walk up the street in one direction from his house. "If you walk up there you will pass the Catholic Church where the devil lives and he will jump out and get you."

Fortunately I am not seriously scarred unlike some others who require intensive therapy.

195. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5595 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 3:31 am

Alister McGrath? Who is he?

196. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5592 by Aussie on November 10, 2006 at 3:06 am

My brother, who has been a pastor of a well known fundamentalist church and theological college lecturer all his life, told me recently that to ensure the success of any religion you need to provide three essential components:

i) Give them something to love
ii) Give them something to hate
iii) Convince them that they are right.

I would add a fourth component

iv) Convince them to "Give until it hurts".