201. Fleabytes

Comment #145144 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

Mike, when I first started posting on this site, I was quite prepared to give David the benefit of the doubt. But post after post after post after post from him has decided me otherwise. Time and time again he has been given the opportunity to engage in proper, civilised discussion with us if that was what he wanted to do. And time and time again he has gone out of his way to avoid it, and to simply seek out opportunities to distort and abuse.

Time and time again we have seen him twist and distort, until honest debate and discussion become absolutely impossible. You cannot enter into a meaningful discussion with someone for whom the word "honesty" has become debased to "well, it wasn't technically a lie".

If I despise David - and I do - it is simply because time and time and time again his behaviour on this site has been and continues to be despicable.

If your book was shredded (yes i do mean shredded David) on a religionist website, you don't seem the kind of person that would take it with a pinch of salt. You would give every dodgy point a good slap around

Don't fall for his claim that it's his views that are at the root of the disdain in which he's held by so many on this site. He's welcome to argue the issues as much as he likes. What he's NOT welcome to do is lie and distort and abuse. If you are in any doubt as to whether this is, in fact, what he does, I suggest you click on "Other comments by Clearthinker" at the foot of any of his posts, and select any of his posts at random. Then do the same for "Wee Flea".

No one else on this website has ever, so far as I am aware, generated the kind of hostility that this man has, yet the challenges and potential pitfalls of conveying our meaning in print form are the same for all of us. Many other Christians have posted on this site, some of them extensively, and, although we have expressed our disagreement with them, none of them has provoked the hostility and disgust that David has.

I almost hesitate to quote this example of his seriously warped hold on honesty, since it so directly concerns me, but it is recent and it is demonstrable, so I shall: first he attempted to cast doubt on the independence of my review by claiming it was the officially sanctioned response to his book; THEN, when that didn't work, he immediately went to the other extreme of claiming that it wasn't on the front page and suggesting that this was because RD.net was slightly ashamed of it. Just think about that for a moment - how can an honest person go from sincerely believing an article to have been officially sanctioned by RD.net, to sincerely believing that it is an object of embarrassment to RD.net, in the space of just a few hours? Of course, they can't. It's just that his first attempt to cast a slur hadn't worked, so he simply grabbed the next one that crossed his mind. And we see this tactic deployed again and again.

But it doesn't stop there. Having had it forcefully pointed out to him that the article WAS in fact on the front page and that the claim about trying to hide it away was therefore plain wrong, he then acknowledged his mistake on this website and apologised for it.

Which might have justified your attempted defence of him, had it not been for the fact that 2 weeks later he then REPEATED the very same claim on his own forum.

Mike, your tolerance is, in this case, misplaced. David has shown us again and again what kind of person he is. Just stop and think for a moment - if someone SERIOUSLY, GENUINELY wanted to get us to question our stance, to reconsider our views about Christianity, would they behave as David does? No. And this has been pointed out to him over and over again - but he doesn't seem able to help himself.

Save your sympathy for someone more deserving of it, Mike. Robertson certainly isn't.

202. Fleabytes

Comment #145063 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 8:10 am

Steve Z: To be fair, that is understandable. I relish the attention :)

I don't wish to embarrass you, Steve, but you do actually merit the attention. You post meaningful, content-rich, intelligent, evidentially supported, educational messages, which are always well worth reading. Even when not posting in such serious and educational vein, you are witty and interesting, you go out of your way to be fair and balanced, and you actively contribute to the life and warmth of the community that has sprung up on this website.

All David does is come in here and vent his spleen.

203. Fleabytes

Comment #145048 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Mike: This is probably easier to answer after the perfidy, but, would we be a little teary had the target not been provided by the siphons for this unbelievable thread to exist?

No. We wouldn't have known what this thread would turn into, and therefore we'd have had nothing to lament. Are you shedding any tears over the fabulous thread on Life Now That There's No Religion Anymore that hasn't happened yet? No. You might (or might not) wish that such a thread were appropriate, but you can't miss something you've never known.

Besides, those of us who've been on this website for a while now (and there are many who've been around far longer than I have) can tell you that there is an inverse relationship between the number of the Flea's posts and any possible value contained within them.

It may seem entertaining for a while, but it doesn't take long for the regularly repeated formula of "Twist and Shout", in which he only seeks out those parts of our comments that he feels able to pour scorn on - by twisting what we said, if necessary - whilst simultaneously being careful never to reveal just why he feels the alleged evidence for his beliefs is so strong, to become incredibly tedious.

Why does he post here? He makes no attempt to show his own faith to be reasonable, he apparently has no intention of giving sensible, helpful answers to the questions we put to him, his role here would not appear to be that of either a would-be pastor or a would-be educator. He despises us, he dislikes us, he disapproves of us, he distrusts us, he dislikes the way the website works; he himself has written that posting here is a waste of his time - yet he keeps coming back. I can only conclude that he has a lot of anger and bile stored up inside him and finds it cathartic to be able to spew it all up here.

Either that, or he just relishes the attention.

Or both.

204. Fleabytes

Comment #144907 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 am

Richard M: Do you have a Myspace or anything like it? A blog, perhaps?

Not as such. But you'll find the nearest equivalent at www.richarddawkins.net ;-)

205. Fleabytes

Comment #144895 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 2:35 am

Geoff and _J_ - Thank you for your flights of Shakespearian fancy! Lovely stuff!

mixmastergaz: Afterall, I doubt that Paula thought to herself when proofreading 'Fleabytes' "You know this would all be immensely improved if I change from a straight forward first-person authorial voice and write it instead imagining myself to be a mermaid. That should just give it that extra rhetorical boost to make it really bite."

True. But there's always next time.

206. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #144727 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Richard M, at least you don't need to compose one for Wooter. Someone's done it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNssIhS7ATc&feature=related

207. Fleabytes

Comment #144709 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm

mikejswalker: In the beginning there was Bovril. And lo, it were beefy.

That's not my God you're talking about. My God sent Marmite.

208. Fleabytes

Comment #144502 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 8:53 am

Frankus1122: I think I am obsessed. After reading a few hundred posts last night I actually had dreams related to this thread. I worry about me.

Goodness. You had me worried about you there for a minute too.

Luckily, your next post showed that concerns about your sanity were entirely unnecessary:

The concept of sin is a way of controlling behaviour. My atheism is, in part, a rejection of that desire for control.

:-)

209. Fleabytes

Comment #144466 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 6:31 am

tstinchcombe Tea: Some while ago in the depths of this thread there was a small, but detailed, diversion into the relative merits of various beverages - tea, coffee, Remy Martin etc. I don't recall there being any clear concept of 'a winner'.

There's a little more to it than this, since tea is the officially beatified drink of the great god Quetzalcoatl, (who, as you may have noticed, graces us with his presence and his posts from time to time) and therefore carries considerable spiritual significance on this site for some posters. For some reason I just had a hunch that Calcanei puppa may have strong feelings on the subject too! (Perhaps I'm psychic.)

You're right about the missing 300 posts. Some time ago there was apparently a switchover between servers behind the scenes at RD.net and this coincided with about 300 posts being lost, apparently for ever. Since it ALSO coincided with discussion of David's open letter to Richard Dawkins (a thread on which David had posted extensively), a lot of those posts (though NOT just David's) were amongst the 300 that vanished.

He has tried to suggest on a number of occasions that this was deliberate sabotage on the part of RD.net, since his arguments were SO strong and SO irrefutable, the atheists were left with no choice but to shut him up! You'll be able to judge from the posts of his that you HAVE seen whether his high opinion of their terrifying effect on us is warranted. :-)

Sorry to newcomers: it can take a little while to get the hang of some of the in-jokes and old stories on a site like this. They're not intended to make anyone feel excluded, they just arise naturally when you get as many regulars on a site as we have here - so please do ask if you're feeling bewildered!

210. Fleabytes

Comment #144455 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 5:25 am

Geoff: Paula, have I misunderstood the lyrics? I've always thought of it as a parody of the Xmas story. The "angel gabriel" as an alien space traveller taking the piss?

I think you may have done, Geoff. Quite a few of his songs have a Christian theme, and I've seen articles that claim he calls himself a Christian - in which case it seems unlikely that he'd have deliberately made them parodies. Maybe it's just that Poe's Law applies to Christian lyrics too?

211. Fleabytes

Comment #144442 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 4:52 am

Geoff: "A spaceman came travelling": Chris de Burgh

I don't think you can claim either the Spaceman or Chris de Burgh as an atheist, Geoff!

212. Fleabytes

Comment #144418 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 3:32 am

Welcome to RD.net, Calcanei puppa. We'd all be very interested to hear your entirely independent, arrived-at-all-by-yourself, uninfluenced-by-anyone-else thoughts on tea as a beverage.

213. Fleabytes

Comment #144329 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Mixmastergaz: You both realise that this sounds a little paranoid right?

Yes! :-)

Time for bed.

214. Fleabytes

Comment #144309 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Bonzai: I am sorry to say that, but Paula you may want to stay away from the computer for a while, Go watch some TV, play with the dog or the neighbour's dog if you don't have one. I know, I know I am still here, but it is only because I need to get some work done on my computer and I am procrastinating. :)

Do you know what, Bonzai, I was just thinking something very similar myself! :-)

215. Fleabytes

Comment #144306 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Steve Z: Following Paul's others posts through that thread, I would have assumed he was an atheist, assuming he wasn't a sock puppet.

A comment from the moderator on the Forum thread might be relevant here:

That comment pre-dates the introduction of user verification on the comments section. To begin with, anyone could post a comment under any name whatsoever.

Someone else on the Forum also flagged up the entirely different tone of the post in question from other posts by Paul:

That would explain the sudden change in tone in the next comment from someone called Paul. This one is hardly a ringing endorsement: http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... page3#6197

EDIT: It doesn't look as if that final url link is working in the quote, but it works from the original comment in the Forum if anyone wants to take a look.

216. Fleabytes

Comment #144285 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Now, where does that quote come from? Search RichardDawkins.net all you like, the earliest reference to it comes in a pdf of a poster for one of David Robertson's talks - you'll find it here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893>

OK, I've since found the comment. It's here, posted under the user name of Paul: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page2#6116:

Wow, this is an intelligent and well crafted view of RD's book. I can see that it really got to most readers of this site as well, seeing as it was posted 2 days ago and already has a comment pagination level of 5, and most of the comments are just stating that the writer of this entry is wrong and a dumb stoopid head.

I love it when things get stirred up. Please keep it up!

So I made a mistake when I said it wasn't there. However, on what basis does this comment become attributed in publicity materials to someone who is a) anonymous and b) an atheist?

The reason I was able to find it was that someone in the Forum had already done so. That thread in the Forum is rather interesting on this issue, and it would be well worth taking a look, if you can be bothered: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893&st=0&sk=t&sd=a (It's only 2 pages long.)

One of the comments there is by none other than MLearnedFriend, who, despite his apparent newcomer status on RD.net, had apparently been taking sufficient interest going back quite a long time to have gone to the trouble of saving RD.net comments about David's book, and was therefore able to share them in this post on 22 Feb (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25):

I am astonished that so many of you can do a brief (or even extensive) search of the website for the quotes and then say 'I didn't find it so he made them up, he's a liar'! A good job journalists don't operate on this principle or we wouldn't be able to trust the newspapers.

What many of you won't realise is that David is banned from the Dawkins website (so much for free speech) because he (and I'm not making this up, it was the reason given) 'you cause arguments' - I mean, isn't lively discussion of opposing views the point!? Perhaps those comments about the totalitarian nature of those running this website aren't too wide of the mark after all? [Does this comment put you in mind of anyone at all? - PK]

That also means that many of the initial discussions were removed from the website. So those of you who just did a search on the website - good idea but the website managers let you down.

Here are the quotes in full.

But Robertson is a prat. And not only a PRAT, but a dangerous PRAT. A complete loser.I've never read such a dogmatic, vicious diatribe as this. WHEN WILL THEISTS LIKE ROBERTSON actually provide some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of their own - something we can really scrutinize and say - "Hey! You know, there could be a God, judged on this evidence â€" William â€" an atheist.

"Bravo David Robertson, Not only did you take the time to read "The God Delusion" (Btw, I'm pretty sure President Bush never will takes his time to do that). You also took the time to write a long article about your reaction, and now you join this discussion." Ole â€" an atheist from Norway.


Wow, this is an intelligent and well crafted view of RD's book. I can see that it really got to most readers of this site as well, seeing as it was posted 2 days ago and already has a comment pagination level of 5, and most of the comments are just stating that the writer of this entry is wrong and a dumb stoopid head.I love it when things get stirred up. Please keep it up! â€" Paul

."That David Robertson is as daft as a brush. I'm amazed he gets so many letters published in the papers." From 'saneatheist'.

"I'm impressed that some of the people here bother to debate this Robertson nincompoop. He is is clearly out of his mind and beyond reason and logic.If you do debate him, stop respecting his delusions, however eloquent he puts them, and please approach him with the scorn and contempt that he deserves.Dawkins refuses to debate this sort of weirdness because it gives the person with the sick mind the impression that there really is something to debate." Another atheist…

I'd like to say thank you for your articulate responses to all of these (sometimes hostile) questions. I am definitely an atheist but I really appreciate some good, healthy, well writted debate. â€" Leighton.

Now, I guess it would be too much to ask for an apology from all of you who said David was a liar and a fraud? Would be really encouraging if you did that so that we can all believe that there is a future for the human race in lively discourse.

Now, you might share my view that it is odd for someone other than David Robertson to have taken such a personal interest in his banning, and to have searched for quotes about Robertson's book months and months ago and then kept them somewhere safe where he was able to find them again when he wanted to quote them in David's defence.

Subsequent comments on the forum include raised eyebrows about MLF's possible true identity, and the observation from the Mod that the "intelligent and well crafted" comment pre-dated mechanisms for user identification on the site, which means that ANYONE could have posted that comment under that name.

217. Fleabytes

Comment #144251 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Dr Benway: Hehehe. "I expected Robertson's book to win the dog ball sucking award..." might become

"Robertson's book 'expected to win awards'!"
-- atheists at RD.net.

Dr Benway, I think you may have the gift of prophecy.

218. Fleabytes

Comment #144242 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Dr Benway: I'm trying to imagine the mind of the publisher deciding to lift a quote from your review as a means of plugging DR's book. He or she must be either:
1. Thick as a brick
2. Desperate

3. Both

219. Fleabytes

Comment #144235 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

SG: AAAAARGH... I am dazed and confused... Time is going backwards - I've now got a response to your posting up before your own posting.....

Yes, sorry. I realised that my first post contained a statement that was incorrect, so I deleted it - but obviously not quite quickly enough!

Still, at least it gives you the perfect excuse to hit the malt.

220. Fleabytes

Comment #144233 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Oh, isn't Google a wonderful thing!
Look what I've just found (thank you, Google) on http://www.christianfocus.com/
In a section promoting Robertson's book, The Dawkins Letters:

It's official! Richard Dawkins website says that 'The Dawkins Letters' is the best response to 'The God Delusion'.
OK, so they didn't exactly like it but their reviewer said "rather astonishingly only one attempted a serious rebuttal of The God Delusion and imparted a clear view of it's writer's beliefs - and that was David Robertson's". She also said that "I also had the preconception that Alister McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, would probably be the meatiest of the four... But I was wrong about McGrath."

Do you know, when I wrote that sentence I did so in the full expectation that one day it would turn up as though it were actually endorsing Robertson's book. I even considered taking it out, for that very reason, but then decided to leave it in on the basis that it IS the best of the (egregious) bunch and I refuse to change my behaviour out of defensiveness about theirs.

Quite apart from the fact that I am not the Richard Dawkins website, did anyone else spot the rather unchristian glee at my denunciation of Alister McGrath's book? Perhaps this will be more understandable when I tell you that the publisher of Robertson's book is none other than ... Christian Focus!

Anyway, the comment on christianfocus.com continues:

When Richard Dawkins published 'The God Delusion', David Robertson wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response. After some ill thought through interventions in the media it was obvious that no one was really going to answer the real issues so David Robertson wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins on his church website. This has found its way into Richard Dawkins website, where it generated the largest response of any posting before or since.

Ahem. "Or since?" I think their website in in rather urgent need of updating. This is Robertson's letter on the RD website: http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson - from which you will see it generated 577 comments.

Now, I can't tell when ChristianFocus last updated their website but, if they're being honest in their "before or since" claim, we have to suppose it was before May 2007, since that was when this - http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews - appeared, and generated over 2500 responses.

However, we haven't yet reached the best bit. You're going to love this. Included in the Reviews of Robertson's book you will find the following gem:

"Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book."
Response from an atheist on Richard Dawkins Website

Now, where does that quote come from? Search RichardDawkins.net all you like, the earliest reference to it comes in a pdf of a poster for one of David Robertson's talks - you'll find it here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893>

There's simply no prior mention of it.

And how convenient that it should have been from an anonymous atheist!

By the way, that quote also appears on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Letters-Challenging-Atheist-Myths/dp/1845502612), under the Product Description section of the book (i.e. the descriptions supplied to Amazon by the publisher, I assume, since it's hardly likely that Amazon go trawling the internet to find their own quotes for each of the many hundreds of thousands of books they sell):

- "Richard Dawkins' Website April 2007
"Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book."
Anonymous Atheist

Ah, these dear, sweet, moral Christians. WWJD? Anything at all, provided it served his purposes, it would seem.

EDIT: I posted a slightly different version of this a few minutes ago, which some of you may have seen, but I deleted it because I realised it contained an error. However, the correction to the error is equally amusing, I think you'll find :-)

221. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #144054 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 1:46 am

Oh no, not more mortal sins. I haven't had time to commit all the first lot yet.

222. Fleabytes

Comment #143897 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Fedler, D'Arcy, and SG: Thanks for that.

223. Fleabytes

Comment #143882 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm

D'Arcy: I have noticed that Robertson, whilst he obviously believes in "original sin" whether metaphorically or not, steers clear of believing in a 6004 year old Earth (?universe, same thing?).

Does he? I haven't noticed any posts from him on this subject one way or the other, though I may just have missed them. Has he said he doesn't believe the bible is literal in this respect?

224. Fleabytes

Comment #143755 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:59 am

Clodhopper: Paula: Bet she needs your help to get rid of fleas though. :-(

I can assure you that no fleas are permitted over my doorstep.

225. Fleabytes

Comment #143745 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

mikejswalker: They just laughed the heartless bastards.

Oh dear. I think I have a confession to make.

226. Fleabytes

Comment #143740 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:43 am

Incredulous: While words definitely influence our behaviour, I don't accept that someohow it means we are so substantially different to our animal relatives, in that I believe we will find more similarities in underlying proceses than we subconsciously would like to admit.

I know nothing about this field either, but instinctively I'd tend to agree with you, Incredulous. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that there would be some thoughts and ideas that we couldn't explore or become conscious of, or perhaps even generate, without language as a tool. But I feel sure that at lower levels there are similarities between us and other animals, for all that.

For instance, my border collie has a very expressive face. She can, without a shadow of a doubt, express longing, ecstasy, boredom, cheekiness, guilt, contentment, fear, excitement and defiance. Many's the time I've laughed at her complete and utter lack of need for spoken language: in many ways she's more articulate than I am.

How could she express such emotions if she weren't experiencing them?

227. Fleabytes

Comment #143715 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:12 am

Brian: I've heard of Richard Dawkins. Does that redeem me in your eyes?

Richard Who?
;-)

228. Fleabytes

Comment #143709 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:08 am

Brian: Francis Crick, whom I've never heard of. But you've got his name in your quote above. Small world.

You're not serious, Brian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

229. Fleabytes

Comment #143703 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 am

The laws of physics didn't make themselves.
God made them, but he is not ruled by them.

Good heavens, Irate. Is that really what that stuff means? How can you tell?

230. Fleabytes

Comment #143700 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:02 am

Epinephrine: I wonder about the difference between animals that truly pair bond for life and those (like us) that are less prone to permanent bonds

Ah yes, of course - that would make sense.

231. Fleabytes

Comment #143693 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:59 am

5330. Comment #143686 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 9:56 am
For the benefit of LOL-challenged boring people like me, PLEASE can someone provide a translation? It's the first time I've actually wanted to know what this stuff means!

232. Fleabytes

Comment #143674 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:49 am

Elli: Paula, your story just made me emit a sullen and involuntary "aaawwwwhhhhh". I am for some reason very emotional this afternoon.

Yes, it brought a little lump to my throat too, as I remembered it.

Good to hear from you, Elli - haven't seen you around for ages!

233. Fleabytes

Comment #143662 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

MPhil: But we have no justification to assume that animals fear death

Steve Z: Oh I think we do. We can see their reaction, their mourning.

One day about ten years ago I was driving along a very long, straight track in the Alentejo, in Portugal. Far in front of me I was aware of something moving around on the track in an odd fashion. When I got closer, I saw it was a female bird - not one I recognised, but it looked finch-like - in a complete and utter frenzy by the dead body of her mate. She was twittering and fluttering around, up and down, up and down, pecking at the dead bird as if trying to wake it, and making the most heart-rending noises. She seemed to be in so much distress that it seemed almost impossible for such a tiny, delicate frame to bear it all.

About two hours later I was driving back along the same track - and she was still there, still twittering, still fluttering, still trying to "wake" her mate, still giving off all the signs of shock and utter distress.

The sight has haunted me for years (as you can tell). I can't account for her behaviour in any way that excludes the experience of avian emotions at least similar to the human ones of grief, shock, fear, panic and, who knows, perhaps even love?

Am I being too fanciful? Could there be a non-emotional explanation for her behaviour?

234. Fleabytes

Comment #143646 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:08 am

Richard M: MUSICAL PORTRAITS - THE FLEABYTES "THREDLEY".

Well done, Maestro! This thread wouldn't have been the same without you. Your forthcoming break is well deserved.

235. Fleabytes

Comment #143587 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

Dr Benway: It's time consuming, isn't it, responding to Robertson's distortions? Just when you think he must concede that you've caught him in the act of bending the truth, he invents a new twist.

It's not JUST time-consuming (though it certainly is that too), it's also rather sickening, I find. I detest his kind of deviousness. Interestingly, the only other person I have ever encountered it in - and the resemblance in the behaviours is almost uncanny - was another Free Church minister! He was another one whose words could never be taken at face value, and with whom you had to watch every word YOU spoke because he would twist them all beyond recognition for his own ends.

I find that quite interesting, and wonder why 2 ministers in the Free Church should exhibit such similar, highly deplorable behaviour.

Does it just reflect the sort of people drawn into the Free Church ministry?

Does it form part of the training?

Or is it just the culture in the Free Church, that requires the minister to be RIGHT all the time, and that responds unforgivingly to error?

I don't know. But the similarities in the behaviours of these two men are so strong that when I first read the posts by "Wee Flea", I seriously wondered whether they were by this other person.

236. Fleabytes

Comment #143428 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 5:34 am

Clearthinker: Speaking of facts - and since Paula is into sharing with you the Free Church website let me cite the following in our latest exchanges -

Paula you wrote - Actually, I don't. I have just performed a text search on "central atheist beliefs" and it isn't there.

But in your own review you write the following:

Julian Baggini shows how Soviet Communism was in any case two steps removed from the central beliefs of atheism

(This is from your reviews on letter 9).

Unless you want to be really pedantic and argue that 'central atheist beliefs' are somehow different from 'the central beliefs of atheism'! Anyway I will leave you to answer the original question - if atheism is just simply not believing in God - how can you have central beliefs?

Now the interesting thing here is that Paula made a mistake. If that was me you would all have been accusing me of lying, misrepresenting etc. However I am not accusing Paula of that. She just made a mistake. Mind you the initial mistake was writing the sentence in the first place - it certainly gives the lie to the notion that atheism is 'just the absence of belief in God'. There are apparently many atheist beliefs - some of which are 'central'.

Ooh, David, you are on such dodgy ground here! Because this is how I answered your post on your forum:

Paula: Quote from: DAR on Today at 10:19:14 AM
Unless you want to be really pedantic and argue that 'central atheist beliefs' are somehow different from 'the central beliefs of atheism'!
No, of course not! My apologies. I did a text search on the phrase you had used, since you'd put it in quotation marks. Obviously a text search on "central atheist beliefs" won't find "central beliefs of atheists". But you're right - it's there. Sorry.

The point where I used it was the run-up to a quote from Julian Baggini, who does refer to atheist beliefs in the context of a rebuttal of the tired Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument. There you have it - despite our alleged tenets and creeds, atheists take different approaches to things!

However, the fact remains: being an atheist simply means that you do not believe in a god or gods. It does not require you to take a particular view on anything else. There is no atheist doctrine that say that, in order to be an atheist you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must believe that science is the best thing in the world, or you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must hate all religion, or you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must be a fan of Richard Dawkins. If you claim, as you do, that there are "tenets" of atheism or that atheism has a "creed", you really should tell us what those tenets are and what's in the creed. It won't be good enough to demonstrate that x number of atheists on the Richard Dawkins website appear to hold x, y, z views. For these to be tenets of atheism, you would need to demonstrate that one cannot be a real atheist without them.

Now, the REALLY interesting thing about this, David, is that I not only apologised as soon as my mistake was pointed out to me, but - and this is the REALLY good bit - now that I have acknowledged that my first response was wrong, I won't be repeating it two weeks later when I think no one's looking. You see, that's kind of at the heart of an apology - that you don't do it again. Present company excepted, of course.

237. Fleabytes

Comment #143325 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 2:26 am

We have talked many times about people believing what they WANT to believe, rather than what the evidence points to, and David Robertson has provided a beautiful example of this on the Free Church forum this morning.

As you no doubt know, I have been explaining on that forum the thinking behind the Inverness event with Richard; explaining why UHI have decided to do it as they have; explaining that UHI never asked Richard to do the event as a debate and in fact themselves dismissed it as an inappropriate format; explaining why people are having to give the names of attendees when they book tickets, and why it would be absolutely impossible to use that information to weed out the Christians; explaining why an interview, in fact, gives Richard LESS control over the content than would a straightforward lecture; explaining how this event fits into the overall pattern of UHI events and how it will be balanced later in the year by a similar event with a prominent Christian; and explaining that there is no way of censoring audience questions, because no one will be asking for advance notification of them.

So they now have a comprehensive account of just about all aspects of the event, straight from someone who has been part of the planning for it and therefore really knows what has and has not been said.

What difference do you suppose that has made to David's thinking on the subject? Yes, you're right. Absolutely none whatsoever. His latest post says:

Again thank you for your explanation and assurance. Personally I still think the whole thing is a set up. I know that Dawkins does not like to debate (and as he generally does not come of well, I can understand why).

Could we ask for clearer evidence of how he arrives at his beliefs? Pure gut feel, prejudice and raw emotion. The facts don't point to what he feels to be true? Then the facts must be wrong.

It's almost comical. Almost but not quite.

238. Two More Fleas

Comment #143307 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 1:09 am

severalspeciesof: As for myself, I'm trying desperately to get through McGrath's "Dawkins' Delusion" without resorting to the use of a shotgun.

I sympathise. It is quite possibly the worst book ever written. It is SO bad that I would almost encourage people to read it, simply because you can have no idea how bad a book can be until you do.

239. Fleabytes

Comment #143121 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Steve: Basically, though, my post was an excuse to mention those hydrogen atoms with the power of housebricks... that is so amazing to me I had to sneak in in somewhere!

And quite right too!

Now, why might God have made them do that, I wonder? Perhaps we should ask Wooter.

240. Fleabytes

Comment #143114 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Steve: I think some people find religion comforting because it offers such a small view of the universe. They may call God infinite, but I am sure many really mean is that God is simply a celestial superman, big enough to defeat all enemies and look after me.

I agree with the whole of your post, Steve. I didn't mean to suggest that the universe was necessarily a benign or safe place. Just that it makes the bible look unbelievably petty and mediocre by comparison. Of course some people will prefer the bible for that very reason, but I see that as part of the harmful delusion too, for Christianity does nothing to encourage such people to overcome their life-narrowing timidity, but actually makes a virtue of it instead.

241. Fleabytes

Comment #143103 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Star Spangled Eagle: The Bible is blasphemous against the true nature of the universe - whatever that may be!

I agree 100%. The universe is so awe-inspiring, so full of grandeur, so deeply thrilling, and the god of the Bible is so petty, so childish, and so ridiculously fixated on the minutiae of human behaviour, that it is perfectly reasonable to see the Bible as insultingly trivial. It is like a children's comic instead of Shakespeare; a scribble on a scrap of paper instead of a Vermeer; a hot Ribena instead of a fine Remy Martin.

It goes beyond the Bible, to Christianity itself. The more I see the way Christianity closes its followers' minds, the way it attempts to keep the universe within confines that its followers can understand, the way it fights tooth and claw against any advance in knowledge that might possibly cast doubt on its absolute certainties, the way it tries to force people to adopt an Iron Age morality, the way it discourages honest doubt and enquiry, and the way it tries to portray those who don't accept its nonsense as bad, evil and not to be trusted, the more I tend to think that it is not just a delusion, but a really harmful delusion.

242. Fleabytes

Comment #142944 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:42 am

JamesWoods: I think this catholic priest wins the human kindness award...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7292081.stm

Yes, of course. In a league of his own.

KaiserKriss: If anything, I find his chosen lifestyle of celibacy, deceit and indoctrination as abhorrent about which something should be done.

It certainly doesn't seem to have a very good effect on them, does it?

243. Fleabytes

Comment #142931 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:17 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7294193.stm

Ah, another Catholic Bishop brimming over with the milk of human kindness.

244. Fleabytes

Comment #142912 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:32 am

Steve: Congratulations! To Paula, and to everyone. Not just for quantity, but quality.

I'd like to echo that last bit. Getting to 5000 posts had very little to do with me, actually. I just got you started. 5000 could never have happened without everyone else's clever, witty, brilliant, sometimes mind-boggling, combative, conciliatory, funny, sometimes silly, sometimes deeply moving, challenging, knowledge-loving - and last but definitely not least - musical contributions.

Thanks for all of those, and thanks for your company throughout this l-o-n-g thread (and others too, of course!)

You know, one day someone really ought to organise an RD.net party. Now there's a thought.

245. Fleabytes

Comment #142895 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

ClodhopperI have every confidence that Paula has 5K ready. It just needs p[r]oof reading.

OK, right, here I go. *Clears throat*
M'lords, ladies and gentlemen ... Unaccustomed as I am ....

Right, well, that's quite enough of that.

What can I say, guys and gals?

5000 posts.

It's either a miracle, or we all have much, much too much time on our hands.

By the way, I would like to clear up one area of persistent misunderstanding on this thread. The correct beverage with which to celebrate P5K is not coffee, not Ribena (not even cold Ribena, let alone hot - ugh), not beer, not coca-cola, not whisky, not even (and I'm sorry, Quetz, but I feel entitled to insist that even a deity give way to me on this auspicious occasion) tea.

The correct celebratory drink is a beautiful, curvacious glass of Remy Martin. Cheers!

246. Fleabytes

Comment #142877 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

SG: I notice an outraged character on FCOS forum (AKA the RD.net annexe....)

Yes, 'fraid so. I have submitted a response and am just waiting for it to get through moderation.

I'd already read this person's post a page or so back when a few people here were commenting on the difficulty of getting people to drop unfounded beliefs that they are emotionally wedded to - and I allowed myself a wry smile.

I have no problem at all with people disliking atheists' views, or with people thinking atheists have got it completely wrong. They can feel that way and keep their feelings to themselves, or they can feel that way and do their level best to show WHY atheists' views are so wrong in their view. Either of those is fine by me.

But to make the leap from "I don't like Richard Dawkins' views" to "so his Inverness event must have been rigged and censored" is really quite unacceptable to anyone who's responding with their brain rather than their emotions.

But this is the key issue, as so many people have been saying here of late: religion is a deeply emotional phenomenon, and it isn't experienced through the medium of rational thought.

On the FCOS forum I have explained very clearly how the event was organised and how it's going to work. I've explained that it would be impossible to turn people away on the basis of their religious beliefs, even if anyone had wanted to; and that no one will have any way of knowing what the questioners in the audience are planning to say before they say it. I have also explained that it was UHI who decided that a debate would be the wrong thing for them, and why an interview - even with a fellow atheist! - can never offer as much scope for one-sidedness as a lecture.

They are hearing this straight from the horse's mouth, as it were - I have, after all, been involved in the arrangements (well, not the real nitty-gritty stuff, such as the ticket-booking arrangements, obviously!) and so I really do know what went on; and, being part of the event itself, I really do know what the intentions for it are!

Yet even hearing from someone who has been actively involved in the arrangements has not been enough to shift some people's sense (well, one person's, at least) that there simply MUST be more to it than that.

This person does not seem able to conceive the idea that a person can be an atheist without necessarily also being devious, dishonest and conspiratorial. Or perhaps she simply NEEDS to see atheists in that light. Perhaps she NEEDS the boxes labelled "Go[o]d" and "[D]evil". Perhaps she NEEDS the world to be that simple and is terrified of opening her mind to the thought that it might not be, because then everything else she NEEDS to believe would unravel as a result.

My explanations are proving ineffective because they are being repelled by the mental equivalent of a reinforced concrete shutter, and there is no chance that they're going to be allowed through.

I post this here, not to make fun of the person on the FCOS forum, but because it's a phenomenon we encounter a lot, one way or another.

What is the right response? Well, I firmly believe that nothing we can say will make the slightest difference to someone who is adamant that everything we say is, by definition, all lies. But I still think it's worth TRYING, because on a forum like this, or the FCOS one, it's not JUST our immediate correspondent who will be reading.

On the FCOS forum I will never convince this particular correspondent that she's getting herself hot and bothered about nothing. But there will presumably be others who are less rigid in their responses, who WILL read my explanations and WILL see the truth of them. At least, I live in hope.

247. Fleabytes

Comment #142828 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 6:05 am

43 to go....

I'm not sure that hitting the Big 5K is going to be quite the big deal it's being cracked up to be if the last 50 posts just consist of a countdown!

So here's a serious question for you:

Er, no, sorry, can't think of one.

:-)

248. Fleabytes

Comment #142749 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 4:38 am

Clodhopper: It is possible the RDnet software may not be capable of 'recognising' 100 pages as possible whereupon the entire internet might collapse.

Ah yes. That'll be the P5K Bug. Beware: aeroplanes may fall out of the sky too. ;-)

249. Fleabytes

Comment #142712 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 3:34 am

Cartomancer: Carry on gentlemen, as you were.

"Gentlemen"????? Do I look like a gentleman?????? I'd stay off the Coca-Colas for a while if I were you, Cartomancer. They seem to have a decidedly lowering effect on your consciousness!

250. Two More Fleas

Comment #142531 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Room101: Great. 2 new fleas. Paula - you're on the clock ;o)

Aaaaaarrrrgghghghghghghgghhghhhhgh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I've suffered enough, truly!

Seriously, that's over 20 fleas now. It seems that pesky God Delusion takes an awful lot of refuting. 20 flea books and STILL the Christians feel the need to keep kicking it: so despite all the fleas to date, they clearly don't think Richard's arguments have been defeated!

Now, here's a thought. Since God has already revealed himself definitively and inerrantly in the Bible, why don't they just refer us to that instead of writing more books that, by their own reasoning, can't possibly be as good as the one God wrote? Perhaps they think God needs a helping hand? An interpreter? A good editor? They don't seem to have a very high opinion of God or his book when it really comes to it, do they?