251. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162135 by mixmastergaz on April 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

Of course the complicity of the church authorities in covering up these cases is apalling. What's hardly ever mentioned is the complicity of the faithful themselves.

I'm a former catholic. The first priest I can remember in my old parish (a pleasant enough chap of whom I was quite fond) just disappeared one day and a conspiracy of silence amongst the parishioners ensued. I received so many stern glances and unexplained rebukes for asking, with a child's innocence, where Father Kelly was that I was afraid to broach the subject even with my own parents. Years later, as I teenager, I discovered that apparently he'd fallen in love with a widowed parishioner and left the priesthood. The perceived 'guilt' and 'shame' of this incident seemed to be shared by the faithful. I don't suppose anyone ever actually said "let's all keep quiet about this"; it just 'goes without saying'. I realise that this isn't comparable with child-rape. I only draw the parallel between the reactions of the faithful. In the case of Father Kelly and his partner, I'm happy for them both and see nothing in this that merits the sort of response it caused in my old parish. But if this is the response to something as inocuous as the events I describe above, how are the faithful likely to react to something that really is shameful and apalling? Probably not in a way that is helpful in terms of making sure nothing like it could happen again. And all this Catholic guilt can't be helping the victims of abuse much either.

Religion equips people to become experts in denial and self-deception, and when that fails folks just pretend nothing's wrong. Once you've seen through the smokescreen you can't help but feel infuriated by those who will go to great lengths to avoid lifting the bull's tail and looking the facts in the face.

252. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162118 by mixmastergaz on April 16, 2008 at 7:32 am

The mention of promiscuity is disingenuous, and a deliberate smokescreen. The elephants in the high school classroom are promiscuity and soaring STD rates. Obviously this is a rhetorical question, but how many straight and promiscuous students were denied access to the ball?

253. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #161402 by mixmastergaz on April 15, 2008 at 8:53 am

When I was undertaking initial teacher training we (my fellow trainees and I) were 'treated' to a guest lecture on 'brain gyms' and encouraged to lead our classes in these fatuous exercises at the start of every lesson. I thought it was a load of foundationless crap at the time (and said so) but most of those attending the lecture disagreed and many of those pledged to begin their classes in this ridiculous fashion. What I was most struck by at the time was how easily persuaded these people were. I would guess that none (or few) of them had ever even heard of a 'brain gym' before attending the lecture. All it took was someone to vouch for their effectiveness and pass around a poorly-photocopied handout and most were 'converted'. I weep for the state of education in my country! Perhaps compulsory lessons in critical thinking would be more beneficial (actually, there's no 'perhaps' about it; encouraging students to examine the contents of their nostrils would have more educational merit than this garbage).

Assuming that some of those who attended the lecture did incorporate 'brain gyms' into their lessons regularly, it's a sobering thought to consider how much time all those 'five minutes at the start' would add up to across an academic year, and what might otherwise have been learned in that time.

254. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161388 by mixmastergaz on April 15, 2008 at 8:30 am

I'm glad to see this reprinted here as it's one of my favourite parts of TGD and arguably one of the most overlooked, I suspect deliberately, because it doesn't sit well with the misrepresentative charicature of Richard's work that we've become accustomed to from the religious apologists.

When I'm not to be found behind the decks mixing and scratching I'm a religious studies teacher. I keep my personal opinions on religion private from my students, but I've found the above part of TGD to be most helpful when trying to explain to exasperated (usually theist) colleagues why an atheist would choose to teach religious studies.

Goatboy (Bill Hicks fan?):

I don't think the Grauniad does have a particular axe to grind with Richard. Most of its regular contributors are atheists or agnostics and Polly Toynbee is a distinguished member of the BHA. Perhaps the handful of recent articles critical of Richard and the so-called 'new atheists' is just a blip.

Philip: Two sugars in mine (with due reverence and a moment's reflection on the tealeological argument and ontealogical argument if you please!)

255. A New Flea

Comment #160428 by mixmastergaz on April 14, 2008 at 4:53 am

Bloody hell, yet another one!

How cheap of the designer of the Mclean cover to leave the "£4 off" sticker on TGD.

As a personal aside, I saw Keith Ward give a lecture some years ago when I was an undergraduate. When the time for questions arrived (mercifully, as it was a spectacularly dull lecture) I suspected that some attendees had been 'planted' to ask easy questions because they were of the following sort:-

"Could I trouble you to give us a brief reminder of your latest triumphs?"

Anyway, finally some bright, young undergraduate tore his argument to pieces with a few brief remarks and an unanswerable question. It was followed by an uncomfortable silence whilst the majority theist audience tut-tutted to themselves at the impertinence of someone pointing out that Ward's argument had more holes than a lump of Swiss cheese. I'll get his book from the library (I'm not lining the guy's pockets), but I'm not expecting much based on past experience.

256. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160423 by mixmastergaz on April 14, 2008 at 4:39 am

Another lazy journalist who hasn't done his research properly.

Bamiyan statues anybody?

257. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158962 by mixmastergaz on April 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

Surely Hitler's irrational hatred of the Jews (and therefore, to some extent the holocaust) is accounted for more credibly by his catholicism, with its attendant charge of 'deicide' and its appaling history of anti-semitism, than by so called 'social Darwinism'.

The dishonesty of our opponents on this issue seems to know no bounds. Perhaps they're thinking:
"If we throw enough shit at the wall then some of it will stick."

258. Fleabytes

Comment #158811 by mixmastergaz on April 11, 2008 at 4:17 am

The 'godless mix' I've been shamelessly plugging on this thread airs this afternoon (UK time) 3 - 4 pm, about two and three quarter hours from now.

Thanks to everyone who made requests; listen out for your dedications (and listen out for cameo appearances from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Adams, Carl Sagan and T. S. Eliot, amongst others).

You can listen online at:-

kcclive.com (sorry, still don't know how to add a proper link!)

Email me during the broadcast (studio@kcclive.com) and maybe I'll dedicate a song to you.

Normal service will now be resumed...

ps Steve, in your new T shirt you remind me a little of the late, great John Peel!

259. Fleabytes

Comment #158113 by mixmastergaz on April 10, 2008 at 4:50 am

I must say David Robertson's reply to R M linked to above (on the FCOS thread) seems to me to be wholly unrepresentative of most other commentators on this site. Keith's is the only post I've noticed here that doesn't express sympathy and regret. But that isn't the impression you'd get from Robertson's reply. Not exactly 'lying for Jesus', more like spin-doctoring and quote-mining for Jesus.

260. Fleabytes

Comment #157825 by mixmastergaz on April 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Aaah right, fair enough chaps, all's clear and glad to hear clairpenser's vital contributions are still somewhere herein!

261. Fleabytes

Comment #157544 by mixmastergaz on April 9, 2008 at 8:44 am

I've just noticed (I think) that the hilarious 'Clair Penser' posts are also absent (unless I've overlooked them).

Was Richard M 'Clair Penser'?

It's a shame to lose those posts, if only because people's replies to them (including my own) will now be left floating in apparent meaninglessness.

262. Fleabytes

Comment #157525 by mixmastergaz on April 9, 2008 at 8:28 am

Very sorry to read about Richard Morgan's decision to 'defect', and if you're reading Richard, good luck. I hope you didn't take offence at my enquiry about the missing posts. I was simply genuinely puzzled by the shrinking thread problem. I never would have guessed you were the 'mystery deleter'. I guess that explains why your 'fleabytes' myspace page has disappeared also.

Having read your reasons on the FCOS thread referred to above I would like to publicly apologise if I was one of those voices that you took offence at. I stand by my third comment on the thread you took issue with, but do now regret my first two posts there (although I haven't deleted them and I'm not going to). I don't like offending people and would not do so deliberately unless I thought that someone had deliberately chosen to offend me.

263. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156775 by mixmastergaz on April 8, 2008 at 8:43 am

This thread mentions so many of my favourite things also!

I've been a Doctor Who fan since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. Richard making a cameo appearance in Doctor Who beats John Cleese's cameo back in Tom Baker's glory days.

Mitchell Gilks:

On the topic of Rush songs advocating atheism you might also mention 'freewill', 'natural science', 'Tom Sawyer' and 'faithless' (which was written as a positive response to 'The God Delusion' and 'Breaking the Spell').

WARNING: SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION ALERT

The latter-mentioned song will be included in my forthcoming 'godless mix', along with a cameo appearance by Richard. You can listen online at

kcclive.com (sorry, I don't know how to add a proper link!)

3-4pm (UK time), this coming Friday. Email me at gaz@kcclive.com during the broadcast and I'll dedicate a song to you.

264. Fleabytes

Comment #156731 by mixmastergaz on April 8, 2008 at 8:01 am

Does anyone know what's happened to about two hundred comments?

Whose comments have been deleted and why?

Very odd.

155 pages yesterday, 151 today = something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Or someone's suddenly embarrassed about their comments.

Clearthinker: If you're still reading, I think it was you who said you have been keeping a record of this thread. Can you shed any light on the mystery? (Please understand I'm honestly not insinuating anything by asking you, it's just that you're probably in a good position to answer this particular question.)

Who's the mystery deleter?

265. Fleabytes

Comment #156231 by mixmastergaz on April 7, 2008 at 6:33 am

On the old "I'll pray for you" business. If you're suspicious of the motives of a person who says this to you I've found that replying with "...and I'll think about you too" does the job nicely.

Although it feels patronising to be told this (and I felt a little patronised when clearthinker told me I'd never have lost my faith if only I'd been schooled properly in it), I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this and assume it was meant kindly. Whatever else others may think of him, it surely does him some credit that he came on this website and took us all on when he had no pressing reasons to do so. Afterall, clearthinker's usual constituency is unlikely to be found lurking here and is unlikely to have been persuaded by Paula's excellent review.

266. Fleabytes

Comment #156197 by mixmastergaz on April 7, 2008 at 4:44 am

Well, I for one am sorry that clearthinker will no longer be posting on this thread. I was enjoying our exchanges David! I was less enamoured about the whole 'lying' debate, which seemed to me to deteriorate into a lot of convoluted mud-slinging by both sides.

In fairness to myself I would add that I do feel he skilfully avoided answering some of my questions by dancing around them, and misrepresented my arguments. But overall, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt about this; it's entirely possible that I (and others) have misunderstood or misrepresented his views also.

Looking back on our exchange I feel that perhaps he contradicted himself a little at the end in insisting that there are no inconsistencies between the canonical Gospels, having previously acknowledged that there are several (indeed, he said something to the effect that such discrepancies made him more and not less likely to believe in the accuracy of the various Gospel accounts as, if they all told exactly the same story, this would be suggestive of corroboraion between the 4 evangelists). But this is minor point scoring of the sort that I and others have admonished him for. Still, it's nice to note that people with radically different perspectives can conduct a frank exchange of views and remain civil, at least for the most part (I refer only to my exchanges with him; others can describe their own).

Thanks for taking the time David.

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

Comment #155022 by mixmastergaz on April 4, 2008 at 4:45 am

I accept that joking about this is in poor taste. However, humour may be a natural response to these things sometimes. It takes the sting out of it somehow, especially when the alternative would be to cry. I'm not laughing at the poor unforunate, deluded individual in particular as much as I'm laughing at the human condition in general. I'd rather be honest and admit that I can see the humour in this situation rather than pretend that I didn't to spare the feelings of those immediately affected by this incident as I don't really think that's of concern on this thread. They're very unlikely to be reading. Some months ago a BBC news reader got into trouble for laughing uncontrollably when he was reporting on some fool who'd inserted a lit firework in his ass. He'd done it as some sort of prank but it backfired pretty badly and the guy finished up in hospital. Of course, I'm not happy to hear about someone's injuries but it seems to me that laughter is an understandable and forgivable human response to incidents like this. It needn't imply that we're all a bunch of heartlessly cruel bastards; just human, all too human.

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

Comment #154722 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Perhaps some new word or phrase could be coined to name such individuals. I think two syllables ought to do it.

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

Comment #154719 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I wonder how Irate Atheist would describe this poor fellow...

270. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154686 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

ahem..."clearthinker", if you're reading this thread I was wondering, how did this 'story' originate? Did you contact the BBC or did they contact you? I notice that the article mentions your book...

Perhaps you find it flattering to see your name in print in the same sentence as the words 'Richard Dawkins' (I know I would!)

It's a shame that such sentences also tend to contain words and phrases like "on the other hand", "...has about as much in common with...", "poles apart", "so far so reasonable; unlike David Robertson" and of course "though not selling anything like as many books as..."

Still, perhaps the BBC can help out on that last one eh?

271. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154282 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:57 am

I disagree with you by degrees Steve. One of the great things about the Marcus Brigstocke routine was how unusual it was. I can think of no other well-known comedian who has dared to be so outspoken. I'm sure there's no official BBC policy stating that Imams are off limits; what's been going on is self-censorship. I remember Alexei Sayle doing a routine that was mildly satirical about Christianity that concluded with something like the following remarks:

"Of course, it's not just Christianity. There are lots of jokes to be made about fundamentalist Islam. But you won't catch me telling any of them!"

One of the dangers of treating Islam as a special case is that some Muslims may come to regard themselves as a special case.

272. Fleabytes

Comment #154102 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm

peacebeuponme: Sorry, I missed that post at first glance! 'Orgasmatron': Is that Motorhead or Hawkwind? I can hear Lemmy's unmistakable voice in my head (which is pretty disturbing really!) singing something like the lyrics you quoted.

epeeist (I thought you were an avid collector of EPs!) I ask this question in the knowledge that I might be publicly advertising my ignorance but here goes. Would 'Thus spake Zarathustra' be an appropriate track?

273. Fleabytes

Comment #154099 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Richard M: Thanks, I'll check it out on the station's system A.S.A.P.

Tyler D: 'Leper Messiah' (track 2, side 3 of Metallica's classic 'Master of Puppets' vinyl lovers, I'm listening as I type) is a great track, but probably difficult to mix with; I'll give it a whirl and see if there's any way)

Annabanana: I'll give them a listen, thanks. (I didn't have you down as a metal fan!)

MarkG: 'Busload of faith' I also know and love. Somehow I didn't think of that one and 'New York' is my 2nd favourite Lou Reed album! Thanks for the reminder. With regards to XTC's 'Dear God', that one's a definite. It's my personal favourite of all the atheism-themed tracks I've heard so far. Thanks for the list Mark; there's a lot on there I hadn't thought of.

Frankus and Allan W: Zappa is looking like a strong possibility. Cheers! As for Rush, I was thinking of either 'freewill', 'natural science', 'roll the bones' or 'faithless'. The latter was inspired by reading TGD.

HeathenPhysicist: Re: NIN; I don't know the track but I know the band. If I can find a copy I'll give it a whirl. Cheers!

ForestMist: Atheism is just one theme that's occurred to me amongst many others. I've already broadcast a programme of religiously inspired music, a programme of songs with a science fiction theme, a crazy cover versions theme etc. etc. Atheism is just the latest theme for me to arrange a mix around (if you're interested, this coming Friday the theme is 'funky'). There's really no need to be "scared to death" by the idea surely? I'm aware of Low and Elbow's music and I really like 'audience with the Pope' but it's a love song so won't fit with this particular mix ( 'the fix' from the same album is lined up for a programme themed around 'crime' in the not-too-distant) I appreciate and accept the implication that there's no reason for atheists to dislike music that is explicitly religious. I love lots of religious music! I was originally going to make it a mix of religious and atheistic music but it didn't quite work when I demoed it (although 'Jesus' by the Velvet Underground mixes brilliantly with XTC's 'Dear God' if anyone fancies trying them out together!)

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

274. Fleabytes

Comment #153946 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:55 am

Off-topic post to Richard Morgan:

Richard, I only have access to decent computers and bandwidth at work. As such, I wasn't able to open the email and attachment that you kindly sent to me and subsequently deleted. I'm uncertain from the 'my space' fleabytes page featuring your music (and the copyright warning) if you're agreeable to my using some of it for the hour-long atheist/freethinking music broadcast I'm currently mixing. If you're agreeable to my selecting something from 'fleabytes' then let me know.

Clearthinker:

Thanks for the suggestion of 'God part 2' by U2. I'm not just playing atheistic music and I'll probably give 'until the end of the world' by U2 a spin. It's a great track with lyrics imagining the conversation between Christ and Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hope this meets with your approval!

Paula:

Apologies for hijacking your thread about this again.

EVERYONE ELSE:-

Do you know of any good songs, regardless of style/genre, with an atheistic/freethinking P.O.V.? If so, please add your suggestions here. The programme should air on Friday 11th April, 3-4pm on KCC Live. It's only a local radio station so you're unlikely to get a decent reception unless you live In Liverpool. However you can listen online at:

www.kcclive.com

Listen out for your dedications fleabyters!

Normal service will now be restored...

275. Fleabytes

Comment #153938 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:33 am

Clearthinker:

Further to my post above, I can't help noticing that you've avoided the 'camel' and gone for the 'gnat' again. My point about the inconsistencies we've previously discussed was that they are only problematic if one is trying to cling on to the idea that the Gospels provide a truthful and authentic account of the life of Christ. If one takes the view that "the story was exaggerated wildly by overly enthusiastic 'witnesses'" then the problems disappear. I've put this point to you, in different ways sometimes 'softening' the language, about four or five times now. I'm finding it hard to grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you aren't deliberately avoiding answering it.

276. Fleabytes

Comment #153918 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:00 am

Clearthinker:

Thanks for your brief, if rather dismissive, reply. There's really no need to thank me for my honesty; I try to make a habit of it. In answer to your question about why I asked the handful of questions about inconsistencies between the various Gospels over 1000 posts ago (and at the risk of repeating myself and stating the obvious) I would add the following:-

The questions I posed (and others like them) were examples of the sort of difficult questions that undermined my own Christian faith when I came to realise what the answers to those questions implied. I was genuinely interested in how you had managed to 'square' those particular 'circles'. There was nothing underhand in my posing them as your post seemed to be implying.

277. Fleabytes

Comment #148603 by mixmastergaz on March 23, 2008 at 11:45 am

Thanks for your contributions Mark; you raise some interesting additional points.

Clearthinker: Further to my post above, and as it's Easter Sunday, I thought maybe we could look at the ressurection in a little more detail. Turning to one of the many books to address this, Ian Wilson's 'Jesus: The Evidence', we find six basic hypotheses:

1 The women went to the wrong tomb.
2 Unknown to the disciples, some independent person removed the body.
3 The disciples themselves removed the body and invented the whole story.
4 The disciples saw not the real Jesus but hallucinations.
5 Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but was resuscitated, or in some other way survived.
6 Jesus really did rise from the grave.

There are other possibilities as well. To be clear, and further to my previous post, I'd like to add that my own belief is not represented by any of these as listed by Wilson. Most of these presuppose that the accounts are true in some way or another. I don't think we need to go that far. Perhaps the Gospels simply aren't giving a truthful account. All the problems and inconsistencies cease to be meaningful if one does not assume that these texts are reliable accounts in the first place.

278. Fleabytes

Comment #148351 by mixmastergaz on March 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Blimey! I don't check on this site for a day and a half and 400 posts go flying by!

Clearthinker: Thanks for your detailed replies. On Mark and John I guess we can agree to disagree; we're both able to point to credible authorities in support of our positions. With regard to the other related questions, again I think there's little to be gained by rehearsing these arguments further. Of course, the questions I posed were a handful of spontaneously occurring (to me) examples of the sort of thing that undermined my faith in the reliability of the scriptures. Peering into the origins of these texts cannot help but raise questions about the authenticity of the claims they make. Whilst you may assert that minor discrepancies attest to the general reliability of these texts, I can also reasonably conclude that logically, when we encounter a discrepancy between different accounts, this necessitates our acceptance that they do not contain literal truth.

But all of these arguments may seem inconsequential if one takes the view, as I do, that the narratives they contain, whilst possibly having some basis in truth, are not accurate accounts of real, historical events. The Gospels make extraordinary claims and tell of miraculous events. Experience has taught me to be suspicious when I hear claims of miraculous or apparently inexplicable events and to suppose that distortion or exaggeration has crept in. Allow me a brief diversion to illustrate this point. Some years ago I was shown a collection of vintage British newspaper coverage of the exploits of a criminal nicknamed, I think, 'Spring-Heeled Jack'. The reports made some outrageous claims about the alleged deeds of this fiend, all attested to by "eye-witnesses". Jack was reportedly able to leap from the ground up onto the roofs of nearby houses, or to leap back down again completely unhurt. Other reports insisted that he "breathed fire" like a dragon. I don't have the sources here to check on the precise details (although I'm sure they'll be lurking out there online somewhere, if anyone cares to go and check). My point is that any modern reader would treat these accounts of Jack's remarkable alleged abilities sceptically. We may speculate, for example, that perhaps Jack beat his retreat from a crime scene across rooftops on one occasion, and that the story was exaggerated wildly by overly enthusiastic 'witnesses'. This is surely a more satisfying conclusion to reach than to believe a man could leap from tall buildings unharmed and breathe fire. Another point to consider is that the accounts of Jack's deeds occurred in a society sophisticated enough to have developed daily newspapers and with sufficient literacy rates to provide a readership. The exaggerations must have crept in within days of the real events they elaborate upon occurring! The Gospels appear to have been written at least three decades after the events they describe at a time of widespread illiteracy and, by today's standards, superstition. Is it really so unreasonable to suppose that a similar process was at work in the Gospels? To believe that they contain the most important message ever revealed to humanity requires a leap of faith of which even Spring-heeled Jack would be proud.

279. Fleabytes

Comment #147436 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I think clearthinker's gonna have his work cut out for him answering your points and maintaining credibility. My reply to him was much more generalised; you've given him some meaty specifics to chew on.

280. Fleabytes

Comment #147432 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 11:51 am

Thanks for the elaborations Shayne; you went back to the textbooks? Just out of interest, are you also a theology graduate? You're very well informed! Was it a close examination of the 'source materials' that turned you away from faith? Feel free to tell me mind my own fraggin' business...

281. Fleabytes

Comment #147329 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 7:05 am

I was kind of hoping he might respond in the same way that I did when they were put to me Tyler.

Oh well, we live in hope...

282. Fleabytes

Comment #147324 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 6:48 am

Clearthinker: Thank you for your replies and for conceding that I am not an 'atheist fundamentalist'. I apologise if you were offended by my joke about how you sidestep questions. I was satirically 'paraphrasing' your answer to someone's question about evidence. You said something to the effect that you would respond to this with another question. Of course you never said the words I was putting in your mouth at that point! I think it was clear from the context, with my admission in the brackets following the dubious 'quotation' that this was a joke. Your exact words were quoted above my post for all to see. Additionally, I appreciate the minor correction of my scriptural quotation; "swallowing camels" does sound better than "ignoring camels", and of course possesses the virtue of being correct! However, I think you've misunderstood my meaning here. I was aiming that remark at you in the sense that I feel you ignore the main points of some people's posts (or 'camels') and quibble about trivial, off-the-cuff remarks (or 'gnats'). I was making no point about poor grammar in the scriptures at that particular moment. In fact this rather underlines my point again, since the remark I made about poor grammar (which certainly wasn't original, and which I made in passing only once) was clearly a 'gnat' and not a 'camel'!

But you've certainly given me some straight answers now! Let's deal with them one at a time. You say Mark wrote the last chapter of Mark's Gospel. Well, a clear majority of Biblical scholars insist that there are two authors at work here. The author of 16: 1-8 is clearly the same individual who wrote the preceding chapters. 16: 9-20 however (which contains the account of the resurrection) is not present in the earliest manuscripts we have of this particular Gospel, and those who are expert in comparing the stylistic and linguistic features of these two texts agree (not with unanimity but nonetheless overwhelmingly) that 16: 9-20 is a later addition by a different hand. When I first learned of this I was deeply troubled by it. At the time I had a limited and naïve understanding of the authorship and compilation of the scriptures, and I believed in their accuracy and reliability. This was one of the discoveries that first caused me seriously to doubt my Christian faith.

Turning to John's Gospel and Revelations, again you're at odds with the experts on this issue. I have never met a Biblical scholar who believes that these books are by the same author, and I met quite a few (before I abandoned 18 months of research towards a PhD in theology). I heard recently that even the deeply theologically conservative current Pope accepts that there are two authors of these distinctly different texts. Again, this was something that troubled me deeply as a practising Catholic. This seemed to undermine the reliability of scripture to an even greater extent since acceptance of this logically necessitated believing that the claims to the contrary, within the pages of inerrant scripture, were deliberate falsehoods. I know there are those who have found imaginative ways to square this particular circle, but I find their attempts to be an affront to common sense, inspired by a desire to hold on to a disproven belief in the teeth of the evidence (I can hear a voice asking me, "Ah, but what do you mean by evidence?").

Ok, for you Christ's ministry lasted three years. But I'm sure the disparity of either a one year or a three year ministry between the various canonical Gospels is not news to you. Again, for me this discrepancy was troubling and further undermined my belief in the reliability of scripture. You're also no doubt aware that, according to the Gospels, the last supper occurred either on the eve of the Passover or on the Passover itself. Admittedly, this discrepancy alone does not completely undermine the reliability of scripture, but when considered in light of the many other discrepancies between the various Gospels it does serve to demonstrate that the four canonical Gospels cannot all be literally true.

Your question about how "illiterates" could have written the Gospels is clearly another 'gnat'. "Illiterates" must certainly have been amongst those who preserved the oral tradition. Of course those who eventually put pen to paper were not illiterate by definition. I choose to repeat my (slightly amended) question because it was put to me once many years ago and I found that I could not answer it with integrity and remain a believer.

How can you be sure that these texts aren't what they appear to be: the comforting fireside tall-tales of ancient, superstitious and semi-literate desert shepherds?

Best

Gaz

283. Fleabytes

Comment #146717 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 9:58 am

Excellent post epeeist; makes the point rather well. I was preparing a similar post about a traffic accident I witnessed but it's superfluous now.

I'm sure we've all encountered folks from time to time who seem to be able to believe in their own lies with sincerity...

284. Fleabytes

Comment #146676 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

Clearthinker: Sorry I've only just noticed your recommendation of U2's 'God part 2' in a much earlier post. As you'll understand, this won't really fit into a programme of music with atheism/agnosticism and free thought as its theme. However, I probably will play a U2 track when I do a programme of music with religious themes, but I'm wondering if maybe you've overlooked something about 'God part 2'. You quoted some of the lyrics:

"I don't believe the devil, don't believe his book,
But the truth is not the same without the lies he made up."

The 'devil' referred to here is Albert Goldman (I think he's mentioned by name elsewhere in the song), and not Satan. Goldman wrote a biography of John Lennon that placed huge emphasis on the man's shortcomings and human foibles in what amounted to a sustained attempt to 'write-off' Lennon. The book containing these "lies he made up" (according to U2) is 'The Lives of John Lennon'. The lyrics you quoted are in support of Lennon's reputation not God's.

285. Fleabytes

Comment #146503 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 6:35 am

I enjoyed your report Quetz. For me the most (unconciously) revealing thing he said was:-

"If somebody asked me a question then I would immediately avoid answering it." (or something like that...)

286. Fleabytes

Comment #146164 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Frankus: I think the gnat/camel comment you refer to was me. I was accusing "clearthinker" of "straining out gnats and ignoring camels" when replying to posts on this thread, including mine. He hasn't responded yet.

I don't want to say (yet) where I got the quotation from; I'm interested to see if "clearthinker" recognises it...

287. Fleabytes

Comment #146156 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Styrer: Of course I agree. Perhaps that's why believers are so threatened by literature and the arts. They're competition (with a much better product) for organised religion.

288. Fleabytes

Comment #146138 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Put Bacchus to shame? I'd make Caligula blush!

Don't knock the writhing 'til you've tried it. By the way, you're awfully well informed about our sinful ceremonies in the Monastery of Sound. It is EXACTLY as you describe. Confess! Do you not secretly desire to join us Monsieur Penseur?

289. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #146130 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm

ygern: Sure there's no net. But neither is your house on fire so there's no need to take the 'leap of faith'.

290. Fleabytes

Comment #146127 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Styrer: I read your reply to Robertson and a quotation I think I must've heard on clip on this site somewhere sprang to mind:

"The religious mind cannot understand the ironic one."

(Or something like that!)

291. Fleabytes

Comment #145996 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Revd. D. : "myth, like Hollywood, loves remakes". Brilliant!

And of course it's worth considering how the canon was arrived at. And this had as much, if not more, to do with the political ambitions of the councillors at Nicaea than with textual authenticity. If greater credibility is to be granted to those texts thought to be composed within the lifetimes of Christ's contemporaries, then some apocryphal texts deserved inclusion but were excluded, whilst other obvious candidates for exclusion (step forward 'Revelations') made the final cut.

Of course, clearthinker's likely to come back at some point, remind us that he's studied the Bible in its original languages (again), and tell us we don't know nothin' 'bout nothin'.

292. Fleabytes

Comment #145972 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 12:23 pm

mlearnedfriend: I may safely concede that what we now know as the Bible is as accurate to the original texts as your quotations claim it to be. However, the gospels survived via an oral tradition in an ancient, pre-literate society for perhaps a generation before they were written down. It is extremely unlikely to suppose that they avoided the 'Chinese whispers' effect, and there is no reason to suppose that what was written down was reliable anyway. The gospels contain incompatible accounts; logically they cannot all be 'literal truth'.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that they may simply be what they appear to be; the fireside tall-tales of ancient, illiterate desert shepherds.

293. Fleabytes

Comment #145931 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 10:29 am

Blimey, I leave the site unattended and totally miss the big 6K. It's getting difficult to keep up with this thread., anyway…

Clearthinker: I thought I might evidence some of that clear thinking you say we're avoiding (post 5874). When I consider the years that elapsed after the claimed death and resurrection of Christ and the composition of the various gospels, in which time the narrative of Christ survived only as an oral tradition and was therefore subject to who-knows how many revisions, both deliberate and accidental, it seems to me that to doubt the reliability of these scriptures is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; indeed it is inconceivable to suppose that some sort of 'Chinese whispers' effect could not have crept in. And those who cannot, like yourself, simply set aside their credulity on this matter do not deserve to be insultingly dismissed as 'fundamentalists', although they may accurately be described as atheists or agnostics. I wish to harm no one as a consequence of this opinion; I don't seek to impose it on anyone. I am not dogmatic about it and could be persuaded to change my opinion in light of better evidence. If words are to be used with some relationship with their meanings then in what sense can I accurately be said to be a 'fundamentalist' about this?

294. Fleabytes

Comment #145703 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:49 am

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be vicious with those tendrils...

Excuse me folks, I must go now and partake of finest tea. I think the Rutles are expected later...

295. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145698 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:42 am

'Science cannot answer empirical questions about the origin of the universe'. What and Christianity can? The profusion of articles of this sort betrays a creeping desperation in the theists' arguments. Quantity not quality appears to be the order of the day. It doesn't matter how poor their counter-arguments are, there just needs to be enough of them to create the impression of a spirited rebuttal.

This puts me in mind of a saying from a friend of mine:-

"If you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick."

296. Fleabytes

Comment #145567 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:59 pm

I think you're overlooking the subtler charms of Clairpenser's preaching. Pathfinder is strident and shrill. Clairpenser is the Dan Dennett of hellfire preaching!

Clearthinker, on the other hand, is the David Robertson of preaching...

297. Fleabytes

Comment #145556 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Err...Clearthinker?

298. Fleabytes

Comment #145528 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Ok everybody, it's time to put the "devilled eggs" away now. Clearthinker's back so let's all quit screwing around.

Clearthinker: Of course pathfinder is a wind-up merchant. Don't be troubled is by he (as Clairpenser might say!)

Myself, I'm off for a cup of tea (in moderation of course). I'll be back in a wee while. Hope to see some interesting posts (that's pretty much guaranteed here).

299. Fleabytes

Comment #145511 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Of course "in moderation"! Too much tea leads to impure thoughts, even to the very worst sorts of foul self-scratchings such as the pagans indulge in.

Wankers.

But I will take comfort from the Psalms when I am walking past a graveyard at full moon.

300. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145502 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Adrian: "his blood-chilling encounters with a childhood schoolmarm" caught my eye as well. WTF is he talking about? Hitchens describes his 'schoolmarm' with affection and fondness. She doesn't belong in the same category (or the same sentence) as "murderous fanatics". Tony Snow hasn't been doing his research properly methinks...