151. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #167431 by Paula Kirby on April 24, 2008 at 3:17 am

DLed: the last questioners are awful. The state of education and Weltanschauung is frightening
"why does the embryo gets zeroed" and the last "question" ... no comments

I agree about the question about the age of embryos. That was really very odd indeed, I thought. And I groaned with everyone else at the last question, which was basically just "What do you have to say to someone who has spent the last 50 years walking with Jesus and who KNOWS he isn't a delusion?" But I have some sympathy with the questioner. After all, what else does he have other than his feelings? He can't challenge Richard on the basis of facts or science or reason or evidence. All he has is his inner conviction. To him it's valid and it's overwhelming.

It seems strange to many of us, but this is all Christians have - so it's not really that surprising if they offer it up as some kind of challenge.

Inner feelings are not a reliable guide to external reality - when we've finally got that message across, we'll be well on our way to winning the battle, it seems to me.

152. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167424 by Paula Kirby on April 24, 2008 at 3:03 am

Steve Zara: Not entirely sure now. Just seemed like a vaguely good idea at the time. Perhaps just somewhere where ideas can be discussed along with strategies for dealing with creationists and creationism, and promoting reason, without us being constantly trolled and feeling the need to pounce.

I like the idea too and would vey much like to be part of it. The posts of the Remnants and Truth IDs of this world become incredibly tedious and end up hijacking so many otherwise interesting threads ... but I wouldn't like to do anything that diluted the impact of this website. It would be rather tragic and self-defeating if we moved all the really interesting discussions away from RichardDawkins.net itself.

So I'd prefer to see an area within this website for Real Atheists Only. Though how that would be managed, I really don't know. Perhaps one of the people who have said they might be willing to host such a blog elsewhere might be prepared to volunteer to manage it as a sub-section of RD.net? - issuing user ids and passwords to people who want to be part of it, policing it to exclude trolls who get in under false pretences etc? I can't think of any other way of doing it without either detracting from RD.net as a whole, or asking even more of Josh than we all do already.

153. Flea of the week

Comment #164094 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Lionel A: I have been doing just that for some months but somebody keeps moving it back.

Well, I suppose the bright side of that is that no one would ever think of looking for a book by Alister McGrath in the Popular Science section, so it's probably less likely to sell there than in its rightful place with the other religious books. And really, it's such a very, VERY bad book that I wouldn't wish anyone to waste their money on it.

154. Flea of the week

Comment #163928 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 9:46 am

Lionel A: A sole copy of McGrath's, 'The Dawkins Delusion' has been on the popular science shelf; irritatingly it should be in with religion, for some months now. How do I know this? It is because one of my special bookmarks is still in it.

Yes, that IS irritating. Why don't you move it to its proper place next time you're in? And no, I don't mean the rubbish bin. Though now I come to think of it ...

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163779 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

Steve Zara: You know what puzzles me? If we came from the sea... why are there still fish?

And if we came from dust, why do I still have to go round with a bloody vacuum cleaner twice a week?

156. Flea of the week

Comment #163763 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:14 am

If you make me groan again like that, I'll troll your sorry behind.

Er, I think what Styrer meant was "Welcome to RD.net, ilchymis" ! :-)

157. Flea of the week

Comment #163610 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Adam Morrison: Maybe some people will take up the cause for you for a while.

Oh dear, I think maybe my original post may have come over as more self-pitying than I intended!

My main point, really, was that, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I suspect that NONE of these books is going to be worth reading, whether by me or anyone else. Obviously, if anyone is particularly interested to read them, that's a different matter altogether. But I suspect some of us feel obliged to read at least some of them, simply in the interests of open-minded investigation and just in case one of them actually does contain something new; and my conclusion is that this is giving them too much benefit of the doubt, and we ALL probably have better things to do with our time.

We often make the analogy here of astronomy vs astrology. How many of us feel obliged to read every new book on astrology that hits the book shops, just on the off-chance that it contains something that's going to change our mind?

As I said, I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone who genuinely wants to read these books. I just don't think it's worth reading them out of any sense of duty or obligation. My impression is that most of us know the arguments Christians use pretty well already. The day they come up with a new, more convincing one, we'll hear about it, I'm quite sure.

158. Flea of the week

Comment #163580 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Big John: If we were to chip in to send this woman anywhere, I think we need to send her to TAM6 so I can meet her and shake her hand and sympathize with her in person for the dirty, filthy, job she has assumed.

Well, that's very sweet of you, Big John, but I quite liked the sound of Hawaii. Couldn't you shake my hand there instead? ;-)

159. Flea of the week

Comment #163562 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Diacanu: I think we need to chip in, and send her to Hawaii for a week or so to properly heal from that ordeal.

Know what, Diacanu? You always talk a lot of sense. ;-)

160. Flea of the week

Comment #163527 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Geoff: Paula, you busy...?

YES. VERY. ;-)

Seriously - I've read 4 of these flea books in some detail and have never in my life been so heartily glad to come to the end of a book. Or 4 books, in this case.

It was in all sincerity a deeply depressing experience. And no (before our resident Christians start chipping in here), NOT because, as an atheist, I'm not prepared to listen to the counter-arguments: I wouldn't have picked up the books in the first place if that were the case. No, they were depressing because they were all so terribly badly argued. 2 of them (Cornwell's and McGrath's) weren't argued at all, in fact, and the other 2 just came out with the same old same-old - incredibly trite, mind-numbing stuff.

I was depressed by their incredibly negative, warped view of humanity. By their resolute rejection of anything resembling objective enquiry. By their willingness to let their feelings determine their understanding of reality. To let wishful thinking determine their conclusions. By their smugness. By their arrogance (it doesn't seem to cross the minds of any of them that, even if there WERE a god, the chances of it being theirs would be ridiculously slim). By their shameless passing-off of feelings and opinions and hearsay as fact. By their reliance on biblical texts which, let's face it, are just as unreliable as any other written document. You only need to take a look at the newspapers on sale today, right now, to see how very inconsistent are their portrayals and interpretations of events. You wouldn't wager your next month's salary - let alone your whole life - on any one of them being definitely accurate, would you? Yet these Fleas are all content to base their whole lives on the accuracy of texts that are not only thousands of years old (and therefore AT BEST can only represent the best of human understanding at that time), but are full of stuff that is so patently nonsensical that anyone with even a modicum of common sense and/or learning should really be able to dismiss it in an instant. If you're determined to base your life on an ancient book, might I recommend Aesop's Fables instead? They contain a lot more wisdom, a lot less gratuitous violence and a hell of a lot less nonsense than anything the Bible can offer. Though why anyone should favour "ancient wisdom" over modern knowledge, is beyond me.

The other thing that was depressing about them was their pervading mean-spiritedness. Their small-mindedness. Their inability or unwillingness to recognise us for what we are: an animal like every other, with no special place in the universe (other than that conferred upon us by evolution, namely our - so far as we know - unique capacity to reason. And how ironic it is that the ONE thing that really MIGHT make us special in the universe is the ONE thing that the religious want to guard against and subdue with every fibre in their bodies.) Yet, despite our humble position in the universe, able to love and care and empathise and take joy in our existence.

Reading those four books was like having a huge weight pressing down on me. Really - I'm not exaggerating. I had to come up for air between them, and read (or re-read, in some cases) Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens - and the difference in atmosphere in these books was absolutely staggering: the sheer relief of finding a genuine spirit of truth-seeking, of realism, of humanity, of generosity combined with realism, of sheer, downright intelligence and reason. The contrast was actually quite shocking.

If I'd only read one of the flea books, I might have been persuaded that I'd just struck unlucky and that others might be better. But I read four, and they were all dismally bad. There wasn't a new argument in any one of them. Nothing that didn't amount to a re-statement of everything most of us have heard Christians come out with time and time again. The biggest difference between them was the amount of vitriol and venom they spewed along the way - and boy, do these followers of the Prince of Peace do a good line in vitriol and and venom. Richard has been accused of aggression in TGD - but his aggression, such as it is, is at least open and honest, not snide and picky and malicious.

So no, Geoff (and yes, I know your question wasn't intended seriously) - NOTHING would induce me to waste another moment of my life on these apologies for apologists. How many stinging nettles are you going to pick with your bare hands before you just accept the fact that they ALL sting? How many casserole dishes are you going to take out of the hot oven without using oven gloves before you conclude that it's NEVER a good idea? Life is simply too short to go on and on and on reading bad arguments for a bad idea. There are far, FAR more interesting, relevant, constructive and MEANINGFUL things to do with our time.

161. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162888 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Podaar: You meant cabbage patch, yes? Please tell me Gran wasn't wrong!

Well, you may have been found in a cabbage patch. I was definitely found under a gooseberry bush. But that might be another thing that's different depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

162. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162877 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Fabulous! It's about time someone took the mickey out of these idiots.

Stork theory, indeed. Everyone KNOWS babies are found under gooseberry bushes.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162608 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

Sargeist: These days I like to imagine how I would answer my niece if she were to ask me a question:

So, easy one:
"Uncle Mark, is the earth flat?" "No."

But:
"Uncle Mark, is there a god?" "Er..., um... well, a lot of people think there is, but I don't, but I wouldn't like to tell you that there isn't, er.., um ..., bluster"

On the other hand, to an adult I am quite happy to say: "You know, it's all bollocks really, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

You're right about the importance of not indoctrinating in either direction. How about, "No one can know for sure, sweet heart. That's something you'll have to make up your own mind about when you're older"? Though I'd also feel comfortable with, "Well, I don't think so, but that's something you'll have to make up your own mind about when you're older".

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162603 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 5:59 am

Richard Morgan has also done another post.

Honestly, Quetz, I think he's best ignored. Anyone who's really interested can follow his posts on the Free Church forum - we all know where it is, or could google it if not. He'll be absolutely loving all the attention he's getting, and I'm quite sure that's a major factor in his behaviour. Let's not feed it, eh? It's not as if there aren't more interesting things to talk about.

165. Fleabytes

Comment #162581 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 5:03 am

Geoff: Kinda changing the subject, but still on-topic in the sense of theists twisting things to suit their delusions

To be fair, it's not just theists who do this, is it? My hairdresser told me last visit that she'd started work later than usual one day recently and, as a result, had driven along a particular stretch of road too late to have been involved in a major car accident which, had she been travelling at her normal time, she may well have been caught up in in some way. "I believe these things happen for a reason", she told me. She's not religious, so far as I can make out - she just, like so many of us, finds it easier to see purpose and plan, rather than coincidence and chance, in the things that happen to her (or don't happen to her, as in this case!)

On one level I think I can understand it; though on another, it still amazes me that humans should be so quick to think that the universe (to put it at its least religious) should have a plan for them, a plan that is so precise and specific that it extends to arranging for us to start work later than usual on a day of a major accident.

This desire for cosmic significance seems almost universal, and NOT just linked to religion. I would suggest that it's our inability to comprehend our utter insignificance in cosmic terms that fuels religion, rather than the other way round. Religion simply creates a framework within which a Greater Power can order the apparently (and genuinely!) unordered events of our lives. For someone who can't or won't accept that things JUST HAPPEN, I suppose you can see the appeal of this.

My hairdresser was right, by the way. The accident, and her non-involvement in it, DID happen for a reason. The reason for the accident was an idiot driver thinking he could overtake uphill in front of a blind summit; and the reason for her non-involvement in it was that she'd had to stay at home to take delivery of a washing machine. But it's not that hard to see why string-pulling at a supernatural level might be thought to provide a more pleasing explanation.

166. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #159193 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 3:21 pm

alandhay: My sister was supposed to come along but couldn't make it due to work committments, and I returned her ticket. The drunk guy who asked the 5 min long question about CERN without using any actual sentences... He was the one who got my sisters returned ticket (He also poured his pint of beer down the back of the poor guy sitting in front of us)

I had to laugh when I read this. A colleague of mine had attended the event along with his boss - and it was his boss who had the beer poured down him! As (bad) luck would have it, it was a brand new and rather expensive jacket too! Don't worry though, Alan - your guilty secret is safe with me ;-)

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158998 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 10:08 am

Bonzai: The people who wrote the stories, of course.

But what the writers did or didn't mean doesn't form any part of the point I'm making. My point is simply about the number of Christians now who cite the personality of Jesus - as presented in the gospels - as the reason for their devotion. That's what I simply don't buy into.

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158949 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 8:18 am

Bonzai: Maybe he was not supposed to be an outstandingly wonderful character?

Meant by whom? God? I don't believe in him.

My point is that many Christians DO claim that he was/is outstandingly wonderful. And that I simply don't see where they get that from. The Jesus in the NT is a mixed bag at best - NOT the figure of perfection they make out. Nothing wrong with being a mixed bag - it's what we all are. But nothing that special about it either.

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158934 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 7:38 am

Bonzai: I actually see Jesus as a very sympathetic figure, a man-god who betrayed genuine human emotions. In some way he was supposed to encapsulate the fate of man, with all his humanity and vulnerability.

Well, all of us have humanity and vulnerability. I don't see Jesus as handling either of them in a way that makes him stand out particularly. As I said before, he had his good moments, but don't we all? He could also be a complete jerk. Again, so can we all. What I'm driving at is that many Christians (if I remember correctly, David Robertson is one) claim that it is the personality of Jesus that convinces them that he was/is God. I simply don't find that remotely persuasive. There is a myth that Jesus as shown in the NT was some sort of outstandingly wonderful character. I really don't find him that special.

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158923 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 7:13 am

Bonzai: What would you think God should have sent as his representative? A slick, smooth talking PR man in a three piece suit?

Good grief, no. Just someone who didn't make his own job 100 times harder and more dangerous by antagonising people it would have been smarter not to antagonise. A few diplomatic skills wouldn't have gone amiss, but Jesus would appear to have been off sick on the day of the training course.

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158912 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 7:02 am

Vaal: Still, Paula, in his defence, he could turn water into wine, so he is welcome in my house any day.

I think I'd want to be careful on that one - it might have been Liebfraumilch.

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158905 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 6:49 am

Philip1978: He sent a load of pigs off on a marathon run and made them jump off a cliff!

A load of someone else's pigs, no less!

He also killed a fig tree by cursing it for not bearing fruit out of season, which seems a rather pathetically petulant thing for a grown man to do. For any grown man to do - let alone one who, according to the theology, was involved in setting the seasons in the first place!

No, I find it rather hard to buy in to this "wonderful Jesus" idea. The Jesus as presented in the NT has his good moments, it's true, but he's also moody, incredibly opaque in some of his answers, petulant, unpredictable, and incredibly undiplomatic - NOT a good quality in someone who'd supposedly been sent from God to win people over. I don't see how anyone encountering the story for the first time without any prior knowledge or indoctrination whatsoever, and without someone standing over them to shape their reactions, could possibly come to the conclusion that this was a man so perfect he had to be God.

173. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158815 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 4:23 am

Irate: Paula -'...the sight of these idiots foaming at the mouth is likely to have a most off-putting effect'. Er...sorry about that.

Oh. Those idiots foaming at the mouth. Yes, quite.

LOL. Yes, don't worry. For some reason it's quite endearing when you do it!

174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158812 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 4:18 am

Epeeist: The problem is that if you are trying to explain galaxies or bacteria then you haven't got a whole lot of positive information in your armoury. The only thing you can really do is shout, stamp your foot.

Sure. But my point is that they don't attempt to make a positive case for Christianity on any level at all - quite the reverse: some of them, including all of this latest batch, simply come in here to vomit their hatred. What a strange effect their loving god has on them.

Irate - you're right. It's not that I'd be swayed even if they were all sweetness and light - the case for a god is far too weak for that. But I'm sure there must be many people lurking here who haven't reached a conclusion either way, and the sight of these idiots foaming at the mouth is likely to have a most off-putting effect, I should have thought.

Besides, it's such an ODD way for someone filled with the love and compassion of Christ to behave, don't you think? WWJD? Well, clearly he'd come in here and spew his venom all over the place. Or so these strange people seem to think.

175. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158801 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 3:53 am

Goldy: Odd really. One would have thought the deluded would be here to proselytise. Instead, they come with arguments to really make one turn away from their religion. Muslims don't do that...neither do hindus or Buddhists or animists.
Makes one assume the "Christians" coming here are anything but. They all, even the good David R, an evil coven, all delighting in the eventual burning in hell of us all. They shall, for their evil thoughts, burn in hell. What irony - rather delicious!

Yes, I've often been rather bemused at so many Christians' complete lack of sales awareness.

The first rule of selling - whether your product is toothbrushes or religion - is that "people buy from people". In other words, you have to get your customers to like you. Blundering in and telling them they're ignorant, evil, stupid, "dummies", "cultists" and the rest isn't a great way of going about that.

The second rule of selling is that you explain the benefits of your product in terms that make it seem desirable to your potential customer. The third is that you avoid "negative selling" like the plague - i.e. you tell the customer why YOUR vacuum cleaner will clean their stairs better than their existing one, but you do NOT tell them that their existing one is a pile of junk.

Not only do very few of our visiting Christians make any attempt whatsoever to present a positive case for Christianity at all, it really is almost as though they were trying to make Christianity as repulsive as possible. I mean, seriously - if they were actively trying to put us OFF, they could hardly do any better, could they? They come in here spewing their ignorance and their bile and appear simply to want to hurl abuse and give vent to their hatred.

The great irony comes later when they've calmed down a bit and start talking about the transforming effect that the love of Jesus has had on their lives! Just makes you glad you didn't run into them before he'd had chance to turn them into such sweet souls, doesn't it?

176. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158678 by Paula Kirby on April 10, 2008 at 11:51 pm

For what it's worth, I don't think Richard Morgan is behind D.I.Ogenes. The writing styles are just too different. D.I.Ogenes, I'd wager, is American - RM simply doesn't use D's kind of language. It's a simple matter to adopt a new net name; far less simple to adopt an entirely new style of writing.

Besides, RM may ACT like an idiot at times, but I don't think he actually IS one. Whereas D.I.Ogenes ...

177. Fleabytes

Comment #158353 by Paula Kirby on April 10, 2008 at 11:31 am

Annabanana: I thought it was the posts about the Russian Cult leader trying to commit suicide in what some would call a "humorous" fashion.

Whatever the trigger, there are plenty of far less attention-seeking ways of departing from the website than deleting all his posts and firing a volley of insults from the safe distance of the Free Church forum. Whatever happened to simply stopping posting? I suspect we all feel the need for a break from time to time - I know I certainly do. Most of us manage it without the need for a fanfare.

Might I suggest that the continued speculation is simply giving him the very reward he was seeking?

(PS. This comment follows on from your post, Anna, but isn't directed at you specifically!)

178. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #158335 by Paula Kirby on April 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

Layla Nasreddin: For example, this one guy was banging on about the prophecies of the book of Daniel...well, if you know that according to internal evidence (certain words and motifs and the fact that half of it is written in late Aramaic, not Hebrew) it is a very late book, circa 165 BCE, NOT from the 6th century BCE as it claims to be.

For me the astonishing thing about this example of alleged biblical prophecy was its sheer inadequacy. The questioner cited the "prophecy" in Daniel that the Messiah would be put to death before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, as having been fulfilled because Jesus was put to death before the destruction of the temple ...

Regardless of whether the alleged prophecy was made 200 or 500 years before the crucifixion, there must have been thousands upon thousands of people put to death in that time - i.e. before the destruction of the temple. Perhaps they were all Messiahs?

To the questioner it was a fulfilled prophecy because his mind was clearly fixed on Jesus being the Messiah. Jesus was executed before the destruction of the temple. Ergo, the prophecy had been fulfilled. Over and over again I am simply staggered at these people's inability to see the huge, faith-based assumptions inherent in their approach to "evidence".

179. Fleabytes

Comment #158039 by Paula Kirby on April 10, 2008 at 2:48 am

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg249#msg249

Talking of predictable responses -

There is a 'God shaped' hole in our lives.

- I was just waiting for that one. It always makes me smile, as it's the equivalent of saying "There's a putty-shaped gap between the glass and the window-frame".

Just like the putty in the window-frame, we mould our wishful image of God on the basis of the gap we'd like it to fill.

Though admittedly the analogy breaks down in that we have evidence that putty really does exist and isn't just a product of our wishful thinking. And, of course, the putty actually WILL fill the gap in the window frame, even if you don't spend your life worshipping it.

Imagining a God that's just the right shape to fill your particular gap may well seem comforting and some people may well find it satisfying. Still no reason to think it's true, though.

180. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157809 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 2:51 pm

AtheistJon: So, probably in your next engagment with him, you will be quite comfortable to sneak in a few hardish questions, aye? ;-)

Chance would be a fine thing! Though, seriously, I'd have felt comfortable doing it this time if I'd been gearing it to a different audience.

181. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157806 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

The cardinal - who stood down in January as head of the German bishops' conference - noted that the number of forced labourers used by the Church was a small fraction of the estimated 13m compelled to work by the Nazis.

At the televised launch of the report in Mainz, the cardinal said the conditions in which people had been forced to work in Catholic institutions - such as hospitals, homes and monastery gardens - had not been as bad as elsewhere.

I'm not impressed with this at all. It sounds like "Sorry, but ..." to me.

182. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157787 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 2:26 pm

AtheistJon: Hopefully, you will get the chance to try the "rough and tumble" interview some other day ;-)

That would be fun!

Anyway, did you have any thoughts or personal impressions about RD himself that you could share with everyone? Wasn't this the first time you two had met?

I'd spent some time with him the day before too, in connection with his Edinburgh event (which I'd also helped to set up). What can I say? He was very charming, very interesting and excellent company - despite feeling rather beleaguered because of his horrible cold and croaky voice. I enjoyed it all immensely!

183. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157758 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

AtheistJon: Why not ask him a lot harder questions. Ones that haven't already been asked a million times before? I should think that an atheist like you who has seen and heard all of these same old arguments and discussions a million times already would be bored to tears by the interview you gave?

The style of the interview was quite deliberate on my part for the simple reason that I was anticipating an audience that, for the most part, wouldn't be familiar with Richard's work, but would just have formed a - probably hostile - impression of it from what they'd heard from their preachers. So this was an opportunity to ensure they heard Richard's real arguments rather than the distorted versions of them. You have to remember that RD.net wasn't the primary audience. I absolutely agree that, if it had been, a different approach would have been more appropriate.

184. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157694 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Are you not able to access the YouTube versions either, Diacanu? I know you groaned at the mention of YouTube earlier, but wasn't sure whether that's because you can't access it or because you just don't like it!

185. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157373 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 2:21 am

Richard Dawkins: Could somebody please log in (I don't know how to) and tell them to bypass YouTube altogether and go straight to our site, which is where they should have gone in the first place.

Well, I've tried, but my comment doesn't seem to have appeared. I haven't tried posting a comment on YouTube before - perhaps there's a delay before posts appear?

186. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157355 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 1:18 am

Steve Zara: I can't quite figure it out, but I think there might be some kind of logical paradox involved if you respond to this question.

Oooh yes, I think you may be right!

It reminds me of a time some years ago I was out walking in the hills with a friend and we got hopelessly lost. After some, er, discussion about which direction we should be going in, I blurted out, "I'd follow me if I were you." At least it dispelled the tension as we both collapsed into laughter.

187. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157350 by Paula Kirby on April 9, 2008 at 1:03 am

Cartomancer: Would it be too terribly pedantic of me to point out that it should probably be dictatrix? You have scolded me for forgetting your gender once before...

Wouldn't that constitute disagreeing with me, Cartomancer? According to Mike, that's not allowed on this forum! ;-)

188. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157331 by Paula Kirby on April 8, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Thanks, everyone, for your very kind comments!

Matt7895: Relieving to see Richard talking again, last time I saw him he was on the BBC's 'Big Questions' Sunday morning religious programme, and he wasn't allowed to talk much.

Maybe, but watching The Big Questions has made me realise that I missed a trick and should have asked him whether it's true he's the devil incarnate! ;-)

Room101: I'd be interested to know how your new-found celebrity, as it were, has affected you if at all? Hopefully it's mostly praise, and none of your co-workers have left bible verses stuck to your cubicle wall with a knife.

No, no bible verses! I work in a small team, and only one of my colleagues is a Christian, and a very moderate, very nice one at that. And no sign of celebrity either!

As for the format, well, I do think it's infuriating when interviewers ask a question and then don't give the interviewee chance to answer it properly. Some questions can't be answered within 20 seconds. If the issues are remotely complex, the interviewee simply has to be given the chance to build up his or her response properly, and to present a range of thoughts that make up his or her case. It's different, perhaps, if the speaker is a dull, incoherent rambler - but that was self-evidently NOT the case here!

189. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157146 by Paula Kirby on April 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Are we actually allowed to disagree with Paula...

I'll have to get back to you on that, Mike.
Signed
Paula the Not-So-Benevolent Dictator
;-)

190. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157122 by Paula Kirby on April 8, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Jiten: Just watched the Intro so far and a lavish intro for Richard but none for Paula.I still don't know WHO she is.(I of course know her from her contributions here.)Maybe it has been mentioned already in some other thread of which I'm unaware.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't really me those 850 people in the audience were interested in! :-)

I was introduced as having moved to the Highlands about 7 years ago, and as being a former Christian, now atheist. I think that summed it up pretty well!

191. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156955 by Paula Kirby on April 8, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Cartomancer: He actually betrays himself later on when he says something like "it's really very simple" with that approving tone.

At one point, if I remember correctly, he (the "he" who is standing as London Mayor, no less!!!!!) concedes that there ARE other explanations for the Holocaust, but says that the devil is "the most satisfying one".

I have to confess I hadn't realised that my personal satisfaction had that much bearing on reality. Though I'm delighted to hear that it has - it's terribly good news.

Let's all have a vote and see which version of historical "truth" we find most "satisfying", shall we? Now then, where shall we start? How about the Battle of Hastings? Wouldn't it have been so much more satisfying if Harold had won? Yes? No problem! Consider it done.

Now then, I for one would have liked to see women get the vote on equal terms with men right from the very start - that would have been very satisfying indeed. So I'm going to close my eyes and wish very hard ... and voila!

Goodness. I had no idea being a historian was so easy. Or so much fun. Wonder if it works for science too? How about we have a vote to decide whether it would be satisfying if the Big Bang had been caused by an exploding crisp packet? It would save all those poor cosmologists so much time and trouble.

192. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156449 by Paula Kirby on April 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Good grief, have I come to the right place? I was looking for RichardDawkins.net but seem to have wandered onto the set of some completely over-the-top opera instead - all this hand-wringing and flouncing off stage-left. Not to mention the encores.

There's been a disagreement over what constitutes humour. Big deal. Any chance we can all now just cut the histrionics and start behaving sensibly again? Please?

193. Fleabytes

Comment #156073 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Steve Z: It seems odd, and somewhat ironic, that theists and their supporters find lying such an appropriate response.

I think I'm past finding any of their behaviour odd or surprising any more. My opinion of them has sunk so low that they'd find it hard to sink any lower in my esteem. I don't mean all theists, of course. Just the Robertsonesque kind.

194. Fleabytes

Comment #156066 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Oh, look what I've just found on http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1079/- (i.e. the website of David Robertson's publishers, on the page devoted to The Dawkins Letters). A comment written by the publisher:

For those interested in a more balanced view than anonymous from richarddawkins.net I advise you to visit the website and read the thread he is referring to. You will notice several things. a) the review referred to by Paula Kirby does not really review David's book at all. She misses out key content because that is inconvenient to her and makes interpretations that are not justified by text or context. b) David provided the website with the source of the reviews on the book and they were verified by contributors to the website as being sourced from there. c) far from being demolished, David's detailed rebuttal to Paula Kirby on this thread shows up her 'review' to be a piece of propoganda unworthy of the name. d) It is sad that people like the reviewer below take their hate to such blind extremes. A short perusal of the website will show you how far well-meaning, but misguided, individuals will go in order to stifle free speech.

Something tells me he chose his publisher well. They clearly have a lot in common!

EDIT: By the way, the publisher's disdain at my review doesn't preclude him from featuring on his website's home page my comment that The Dawkins Letters was the best of the 4 books covered by Fleabytes! Presumably he decided that that bit wasn't propaganda after all! Not that he quotes my comment in context, of course. He seems to have forgotten to include the bit where I write:

Not because I found its arguments convincing - I didn't; nor because it didn't creak under the weight of the distortions of what Dawkins really says in TGD - it does; nor because it avoids the patronising tone and personal animus that characterises two of its fellows - it doesn't. It was the best purely and simply because it does at least attempt to give some explanation of what Robertson believes and, of the four writers, Robertson puts up by far the best fight albeit - and this won't come as a surprise to anyone who knows him from his Wee Flea posts on this website - not always the cleanest.

Odd, that.

195. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156051 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Steve Z: Not really. If String Theory is a true model of reality, it requires those extra dimensions actually exist.

Yes, I can see that. But do the string theorists really claim it as TRUE? Or just possible? The reason I'm questioning this is that I watched the Channel 4 programme about Stephen Hawking tonight and it seemed to be bending over backwards to stress that there was no evidence for the theory actually being TRUE - just that it was an interesting - and plausible - hypothesis.

196. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156046 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve Zara: The problem is that the equations for all this only work in lots of dimensions, so wishful thinking leads to the idea that all these extra dimensions must actually be real.

Isn't this overstating the string theorists' position just a tad? Surely they don't claim that the extra dimensions "must" be real - just that they may be?

197. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156041 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I just put an end italics code. You said you have tried it, I don't know why it didn't work.

Oh, how strange. Maybe the god of the internet is frowning on me.

198. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156037 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Bonzai: Italics killed.

Brilliant! Thank you. But can you share the secret of how to do it, please - for future reference?

199. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156034 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Any idea how we kill the italics? I tried starting my post with the End Italics code in the hopes that might work, but as you see ...

200. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156030 by Paula Kirby on April 6, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Steve Zara: If he said religious fundamentalism was solely responsible for suicide bombing, then I would agree that would be wrong.

I'm pretty certain Richard added a qualification to the effect that "There'd still be some suicide-bombing, but most of it is religion-induced". (This is NOT intended to be a direct quote by the way.) If it wasn't at the event in Inverness, it was in some other talk I've heard him give recently.

He's certainly on record as acknowledging that religion is not the sole cause of suicide-bombings. Thing is, when you're performing live and getting questions fired at you - and especially when your head is fuzzy with cold and your voice is giving out and you're not sure whether you're going to make it through the full two hours - there is a tendency to resort to a sort of shorthand. Which does then lend itself to unhelpful quotes afterwards. This was unscripted, remember. We don't always spell things out all of the time - not even in writing, when we have more time to weigh our words and consider their likely impact.

By the way, I think when the video is available you may be rather surprised that the article chose to major on the extinction story - it occupied such a tiny part of the discussion overall, and was raised by a questioner, not by Richard. Its appearance in the headline tends to create the impression that he travelled to Inverness in order to warn about the danger of human extinction - which was most definitely not the case!