The Age has given Catherine Deveny the arse after her Logie tweets appeared in the Herald Sun.
What’s interesting was the speed and the terse nature of the announcement in the paper this morning.
The paper noted at the bottom of the replacement column;
“Catherine Deveney’s column will no longer appear in The Age. A new writer will be introduced in coming weeks.”
That’s it. No “good luck on your new venture”, no “thanks for all your work for the paper over the years”. This is the newspaper equivalent of “fuck off and be eaten by wolves – you mad bitch”.
This won’t be a popular opinion here but I’m sorry The Dev is gone. She was always passionate, you were never in doubt about what she was thinking and she was always ready to pick a fight. With anybody.
A mate of mine summed her up by saying “she’d rather have a fight than a fuck, that woman”.
Above all, she wasn’t afraid to be angry – and that’s a rare thing in a female columnist. She didn’t write about shoes or frocks or “whoops, what a klutz I am, silly old me”.
I didn’t always agree with what she said but I’m glad she said it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
I agree the sacking is a bit kneejerk. I'm not in her top million fans and I liked about one in ten of her articles (usually the atheist rants), but sacking her seems stupid. There's such a plethora of 'opinion' columns in newspapers these days, 99% of which I care fuck all about. But I can't see why hers are any more or less relevant than any other opinionist. Really, they can all get fucked, equally, or, stay where they are, equally. If a newspaper wants an opinionated person to write for them, they may as well take a Deveney.
I'm calling for the return of 'news' to newspapers.
I'm getting old.
I don't care either about it, but I reckon you have to expect consequences if you put your opinions out there in such a public way. No good turning around and saying "oh but I didn't mean it" or whatever.
I like that quotation, though. That she'd rather fight than fuck. I think I'm a bit the same.
I wish the papers would go back to a journalists-only, no-famous-faces affair. I'm sick of the celebritisation of everything.
Remember when fashion magazines had unknown models on the cover/in them?
I'm getting old too.
But she didn't even write them for her column.
She was tweeting, which is neither here nor there in my opinion.
I wish the papers would go back to a journalists-only, no-famous-faces affair. I'm sick of the celebritisation of everything.
Best you avoid the ABC's The Drum then, Melbs.
Oh I do, Ramon, I do.
It doesn't matter that she didn't write them in her column. She published them, publicly. It wasn't (as she said) passing notes in class. You don't pass a note saying "Stinky McGougall is a fat-arsed cunt" if you know that Stinky McGougall might read the note.
You love her don't you? Is she your sister?
Huh??
Anyway, maybe I should be more sisterly about it because I'm the first person to defend loud, obnoxious, opinionated, angry women.
btw is anyone else having through with the login? Suddenly I'm having to put in my password exactly twice each time.
I do love her, Melbs.
I loved her ever since she revealed she had a "Kevin07" tee-shirt.
I hardly see the telly these days but I watched Q & A from last week on iview because I wanted to see Germaine on the subject of Anzac Day (I loved Henry Reynolds - he had these sort of Wind in the Willow type eyes that remind me of that chap on Tuesday Bookclub but I digress but that's OK because I'm in brackets). Anyway, they ran viewers' tweets across the bottom of the screen. God how annoying. No wonder young people these days have the attention span of a fan on oscillate. I'm getting old as well. I had to block the tweets with a calendar
Her Anzac Day tweets were heaps worse. here's a sampler:
"Anzac Day. Fuck repect. Respect is just code for 'support our selective narrative used to prop up our power that we use to oppress.'
"Anzac Day IS a glorification of war. They didn't die for us but because they were risktaking testosterone fuelled men with a pack mentality "
"Anzac Day. Men only enlisted to fight for the money, for the adventure or because they were racist."
**
I don't know what's worse on ANZAC Day. Fervent scary nationalism expressed in some quaters (yeah you, Cronulla), or 'tards like Deveney slamming it as being somehow anti-woman.
It's a day to remember the dead, and to reflect on the horror of war - why can't people just accept that?
I agree those tweets are fairly dumb. However, I find Anzac Day disturbing, especially as it has become bigger in recent years in tandem with Australia Day. It's nothing to do with remembrance and everything to do with nationalism
Hey Pers, I'm getting close to the end of Blood Meridian. Have you read it? The language is so beautiful but it's so cruel and it almost seems as though McCarthy has some kind of bloodlust that can't be sated. I feel kind of weird about it
I agree there Squib. The flag-waving tossers can have Australia Day.
Leave Anzac Day for sombre dawn ceremoneis, dignified parades and footy.
Indeed, I did read Blood Meridien, and wrote a most excellent review on my long lost review blog. It is here: http://perseusq.blogspot.com/2008/10/blood-meridian.html
Your heart is more easily one than I suspected, Ramon.
squib - you crack me up with your parenthetical meanderings. I agree with Henry's eyes on Q & A. I caught then end part of it.
So Perseus, maybe it's twitter than brought her down? A lesson to be learned there I think.
I'm a sentimental drunk, Melba.
Jesus, I AM getting old. I'd forgotten that post and I even posted in it. There must have been a memory trace though because I mentioned Greer and then McCarthy. I'll have another read
Melba, I'm so glad you get the eyes!
Ah, it's so much more interesting when you've (almost) read the book. And the comments by eveningson. Oh isn't the judge the creepiest guy ever.
Yes, so on the one hand it's genius, on the other, the violence, it's too much and it made me start to wonder about the author (rather than the characters). So I watched an excerpt of his first ever TV interview with Oprah to see if he was mean-looking or something. He was slouched in a chair like he was having a nap (I guess Oprah does that to you) and I couldn't read anything from his face or voice
Oh! And this reminds me. Please update your blog. I miss it
WON. I meant WON.
So glad your drunken bleariness let that WON slip through Ramon.
She lost any possible support from me when she tried the "raunch culture" defense of her Bindi Irwin shot. There is no way here thinking was that deep when twittered. It was just a cheap shot gag that didn't go down too well and she had no defence at all for Tasma crack other than she used to work for Rove.
If she'd gone with "they can't all be gold" (a line she has used about her columns plenty of times) then it would have blown over pretty quickly. As always it is the attempted coverup or justification rather than the crime that plays worst in the court of public opinion.
She reminds me of a feminised version of Rick from The Young Ones. Too many half-baked opinions masquerading as facts.
It wasn't that long ago Fiona O'Loughlin wound up in the poo for calling Bindi Irwin creepy. I reckon I'd be staying away from Bindi Irwin jokes, however irritating she may be.
I really don't know anything about this Catherine Deveney but her comments were in very bad taste. These days though, the answer for unacceptable behaviour is to simply have a few months holiday (Kyle Sandilands, Tiger Woods, Matty Johns) and all will be forgiven. My prediction is she'll be back by Spring.
I really don't get the Bindi Irwin h8torade, anyway.
She's a kid. Whatever you see in her that's offensive or creepy is the product of two (now one) very pushy, publicity-hungry parents. She's probably never had a proper childhood moment her whole life.
It's this fact that comedians like Deveney who, as a parent you'd hope might possess a little more insight, overlook - attacking a child for the failings of their parents is cruelly unfunny.
Maybe they should crack wise about Terri Irwin instead.
I agree with you to some extent Boogeyman, but your logic causes me to wonder:
Will it be okay to make fun of Bindi once she's an adult, given that everything you said in her defence will still hold true; or are you saying that we should always take a person's upbringing into account before we poke fun at them? Hey, maybe Terri had pushy, attention seeking parents that messed her up, too.
I think The Age are spineless. If her tweets outraged them (and let's be honest only two tweets caused a stir) then why didn't they sack her immediately instead of waiting for the Herald Sun to bring them to the public's attention.
I also think her tweets about the logies were tasteless and unfunny and I completely disagree with her ANZAC tweets but I still don't think she should have been sacked.
And I actually think Bindi Irwin is sweet.
I don't understand what makes her such a "fearless" writer. Whenever anyone challenges her opinions she backtracks and claims she was only doing comedy.
Then when she produces offensive comedy she claims she was highlighting serious issues.
More deceptive than fearless.
Was it her or Miranda Devine who called women who change their names after marriage stupid (and other choice insults)?
That one really pissed me off. I don't even know why, because I'm not going to change mine after marriage, but I think it's every woman's prerogative to decide what they want to do. I didn't think feminism was about attacking your "sisters" for their choices.
Puss, here is Deveny's opinion piece on women changing their names and here is the one about marriage being about women submitting to male ownership or something.
Not her finest moment, I admit
Thanks Alex. I don't think I will read it again though. My head wanted to implode the first time.
I was reading some comments on the SMH on a story about abortion last night, and it just made me want to scream. The funniest thing was, those who were most vocal about abortion being murder, and women needing to keep their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant, etc were men. It was eye-opening. I don't consider myself a feminist at all, but I really don't understand why men think they can make decisions about women's bodies, and legislate to such things.
It's stuff like that that annoys me. What gives someone the right to make decisions about other people? It's like gay marriage. Why can't it be allowed? Who is it hurting, exactly? It doesn't involve anyone but the couple themselves. It's a private matter, just like abortion, and just like the decision of a woman to marry, and change her name.
Puss: With gay marriage and abortion the answer is (usually): Religion.
That people think there's a sentient God is wacko enough, but to then presume they know what He wants with regards to abortion, marriage, diet, working hours, contraception, treatment of boils and the materials used to hem a priest's garment is, well, fucken spastic.
But with regards to not changing your name when you get married, what bugs me about Deveney's rant is that it's as wacko as those that say you have to change it. I'm with you Puss... if you want to, fine. If you don't, fine.
Puss, I think there's a big difference between the issues of abortion and gay marriage. The issue of abortion is about weighing the rights of the woman against the rights of the child/foetus, and someone is always going to lose out. My general view is that the rights of the woman trump the child's up to a certain point. I obviously don't think it would be right for a mother to kill her child after it had been born, for instance.
Interesting take on the whole who-har here.
Yes, I know it's from The Drum.
I never said I was intellectually consistent.
That's the bit I have an issue with, Alex. It's not even a child until a certain point. It's a zygote - a lump of cells, no different than a mole on your face. It has no brain, no conscience, etc.
Obviously there comes a point where it is more than a clump of cells, and generally after that time I think abortion is only ok if the mother's life is in danger.
But the thing that strikes me as ludicrous about the anti-abortion types is that they are generally also far-right conservatives. If that child turns out to be gay, they see no issue with stripping it of its rights. Once it's born, they also see no issue with denying it the appropriate health care (in America), or education, or financial assistance, etc. They like to legislate against a woman's right to do with her body as she will, and rant and rave about the rights of the foetus, but once it's born, they wash their hands of it, and declare it shouldn't receive government assistance in any way because they have entitlement issues, and don't believe their tax dollars should go towards helping others out in the community. Their views are ludicrous.
I don't think the argument has anything to do with the rights of the foetus, and everything to do with the attempt to control something they really have no control over.
That people think there's a sentient God is wacko enough
In your view.
Glad to see you've retained your pompous arrogance about being right about something that cant be proven - in either the positive or the negative.
Anti-religious nutters are just as bad as religious nutters.
Pro-choice for me.
Not this shallow argument again about "proof".
I shall let Bertrand Russell speak on my behalf to counter that ludicrous argument.
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
It is not 'pompous arrogance' on my part to refute supernaturual belief, but rather, pompous arrogance to suggest God exists in the first place, and that we (humans) are somehow blessed and can get into heaven (and thusly survive our own deaths) and are made in the creator's image and this omnipotent superstar has a specific plan just for us.
Note also that I referred to belief in a sentient God.
Believing in an un-sentient God entity/presence is still distasteful for me, but not wacko.
Its all just theories, teapot or not.
I'm not interested in a discussion on proof, I couldnt care less about whether there is or there isnt a god - sentient or not.
What I've always found slightly odd when this one pops up on occasion is how closed minded you seem to be about how right you are and how that anyone who thinks differently to you on this particular topic is wrong, and in your words is either 'wacko' or 'slightly disturbed'.
'Shallow' and 'ludicrous' - yep, I bet the extreme religious use those sorts of words to support their arguments as well.
Ironic isnt it.
Pepsi, I used the word 'ludicrous' to describe the extreme right's behaviour - they're so concerned with a foetus' rights until it's actually born.
I didn't say anything about religious people.
But I am right.
There's no God.
...and also,
"I'm not interested in a discussion on proof..."
Then why bring it up? Your original comment was: "your pompous arrogance about being right about something that cant be proven"
Pers, I believe the Age is looking for a new columnist.
Puss, I agree that there are plenty of pro-lifers who are hypocrytical, right-wing, religious fuckwits; but not all of them are like that. Some people genuinely believe that a human life begins at conception, and to tell you the truth, I don't think they're that far wrong. I think that any attempt you make to draw a line across the gestation period and say 'life begins here' is going to be arbitrary, and both you and I, even in our present states, can fairly accurately be described as 'lumps of cells' (complex ones).
I guess where I differ from the pro-lifers is that my ethics do not inform me that human life needs to be preserved at all costs. Instead, they inform me that death goes hand in hand with life and the most important thing to do is avoid unnecessary cruelty. And I think that it's a far, far less cruel thing to terminate/kill/murder (take your pick) an embryo, than it is to force a woman to carry it against her will (I'm also for euthanasia and fertilising eggs in laboratory experiments).
Also, I'm glad you mentioned the teapot, Perseus, as I feel that I can safely describe myself as a teapot agnostic. I find full blown atheism unpalatable because, like religion, it tells me that I should have a closed minded 'belief' about how the universe works. Well, maybe there's a parallel universe somewhere that's composed entirely of teapots, but until science allows us to realistically explore the possibility, there's no reason for me to care. It doesn't mean I have to have a strong belief that it isn't possible. Same goes for God. Of course, this position makes me a fence sitter, right Pers?
Then why bring it up?
I was bored, press that button and you're guaranteed to go off. It was a quiet afternoon.
No seriously though, I've often wondered whether people who are so extreme in their views on particular things and cant see the other side, ie But I am right realise how close their way of thinking is to the people they are trying argue against.
Heed the advise of Alex, she is the voice of reason.
Puss, sorry mate, the contradiction is a bit.
Oh, fence-sitting. The tracksuit of supernatural debate.
**
Ramon, I accept the gig. Please pull strings on my behalf.
**
Alex - ponder these gems grom godlessgeeks.com - they have hundreds of these, displaying the spurious nature of any form of God belief, and could make an atheist out of you.
These are extracts from 'Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence'
15. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
51. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
83. ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
93. ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a 'No.'
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.
I've often wondered whether people who are so extreme in their views on particular things and cant see the other side
That bit gets to me too. I don't have a view. Religious people have a view. I have the absence of a view.
I am quite predictable, aren't I?
I am quite predictable, aren't I?
Yep.
I don't have a view. Religious people have a view. I have the absence of a view.
I think you're confused, Perseus. I have the absence of a view, which I believe is agnosticism. You have an absolute certainty that something is impossible, which I believe is atheism.
The examples you give illustrate to me that, at present, there is no reasonable cause to assume the existence of God. I don't. I live my life under the assumption that he does not exist. I just don't have an absolute certainty that some sort of God or God like entity (sentient or not) is completely impossible.
Actually, on the question of sentience; the very fact that human beings (complex biological machines/highly organised cell colonies/bags of protein soup) are able to achieve it; to me, raises the question of whether higher and more complex (and bizarre) natural systems are able to achieve some form of it too. I've been looking around for years and I still can't come up with a decent scientific explanation for the existence of free-will.
Just give up, Alex and Pepsi. You'll never win again Perseus, not on this topic. We know our stuff, we do. (I just like to sit back and let him rip though.)
On the best way to score a root, however, you may have a chance. Of winning the argument, I mean.
Melba, do you by any chance mean "against Perseus"?
The tracksuit of supernatural debate.
hah! love it
I still can't come up with a decent scientific explanation for the existence of free-will.
Maybe there is no evolutionary advantage in having free-will, as we will discover shortly when we all become extinct
Yes Ramon I meant AGAINST.
Thanks.
I don't know where your comment is.
Fuck it just appeared. I'm seeing things. BUT NOT DRUNK.
No Squib, I mean if all matter and energy is subject to the laws of physics, how the hell is choice even possible? I'm not looking for a philosophical answer and I'm not talking about the random properties inherent in quantum mechanics. It seems silly to me to assume that every little thing that happens is completely deterministic and we have absolutely no control over anything we do. But if you discount the existence of a force acting outside the realm of the understood universe (I hate to use the word 'soul'), what other choice is there?
When it comes to science, my money's on Alex (sorry squib. I back you for all things poetry/writerly.)
It's one of the reasons I thought Alex was a boy. The science thing.
I long ago realised that trying to argue with Perseus on religion is pointless, because he is just like those bigoted proselytising one-eyed religious zealots who can't accept any viewpoint different from their own.
The armchair philosophy and random quotes from deeper thinkers are also pretty insulting to anyone with half a brain, but he seems to think they constitute an argument.
Like the religious bigots mentioned above, the best fun to be had when he arcs up about religion is to goad him till he explodes into an apoplectic brain fart like his verbose little gem circa 3:35pm today.
Also, for Alex - choice becomes more reasonable than determinism when you take into consideration more than the one time dimension we're accustomed to.
which I believe is atheism
Not necessarily. When I looked it up, Atheism covers quite a broad range of viewpoints. I'm not sure there is a difference between what they call 'soft Atheism' and 'Agnosticism'. It's quite convenient really, you can call yourself either without really changing your views.
You couldn't give me a shove in the right direction there, could you Boogey?
Alex, you could do worse than start with a gander at this.
So essentially, PG, my non-belief could be deemed either agnosticism or soft atheism, whereas Perseus' emphatic denial of the possibility of God could only be termed as atheism?
Thanks for the link Boogey. Despite what Melba says, I freely admit that I struggle with some of these concept - and those videos didn't clear much up, I'm afraid. I've read about how reality is affected by choice, chance and the mere act of observation; but I still don't see an explanation as to the mechanism that grants people the ability to exercise that choice. From what I understand, the many worlds theory more or less renders choice redundant, since it states that every conceivable possibility is actualised at some point within the 11 dimensional model of reality.
Of course, if I understand it correctly, this theory guarantees the existence of god, the space teapot and the whole teapot universe; since it pretty much guarantees the existence of absolutely everything. Am I not wrong about this?
Alex, you wrote:
"I just don't have an absolute certainty that some sort of God or God like entity (sentient or not) is completely impossible."
Then Alex, you must also lack certainty that the teapot is impossible.
But just as we know the teapot isn't there, so God isn't.
God does not have any more (or less) likelihood of being real than the teapot.
And yet these people who believe in God exert massive influence on society. It's wack.
You could also run with Boogey's theory: "Lots of people believe in God, therefore, God might exist," but I personally wouldn't waste time on such a weak premise.
I believe agnosticism validates the religious.
Atheism tells them to shut the fuck up, and put their great stories under the heading, 'Great Fairy Tales'.
**
Boogeyman: You are.
Going round and round in circles.
Why doesn't everybody just take their clothes off and be nice to each other?
Though I never tire of Perseus's fluency and charm on this subject.
Boogeyman is right though, about the way Perseus echoes religious nutters with his one-eyed stubborness. The difference, though, is that he's not going to:
- kill anyone over it
- cover anyone up with the equivalent of a hessian sack over it
- cut off anyone's labia over it
- dig out and remove anyone's clitorus over it
- bomb anyone over it
- bayonet anyone over it
- chop off anyone's arms/feet over it
- stone anyone to death over it
- whip anyone over it
And he won't, I believe but I might be wrong, especially with one of these points, use his atheism to:
- tell old people that they are being punished for things they did or didn't do during their lives
- make people give him money
- make people give him money to help maintain his house on the coast
- make people sleep with him
- interfere with children
- abuse people in orphanages and institutions
- stop women from talking about atheism in a formal manner, at gatherings etc.
Some of these examples of course are more for effect than meant as a serious argument. Some of the things in the first list are cultural yet often interpreted as religious behaviours. Even though they have cultural roots, they have come to be associated with religion so I reckon they can count.
I guess my question is:
How, apart from annoying people with his arrogance, doggedness and absolutism is Perseus being atheist (and talking about it; defending it) going to hurt anyone?
Oh I do love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Puss, sorry mate, the contradiction is a bit.
Que? Was there part of that sentence missing? And yes, I see the other side's point about abortion, but I don't agree with it. It's not that part that irritates me. They can think the clump of cells is a cognitive child for all I care. What I care about it someone trying to impose something on someone else, when it really doesn't concern them.
Oh, and the complete hypocrisy of it. If they just came out and said, "we're misogynists who want women back in the kitchen, popping out 10 children," then they're bullshit "foetal rights" stuff wouldn't bother me. But saying they're fighting for foetal rights, while at the same time trying to strip born children from basic necessities, such as food, clothing, education (by campaigning against welfare) is just ridiculous.
That's the issue I have. It's not that I can't see why they're saying they think it's a child at conception, it's the misogyny and hypocrisy I have issues with.
Of course, I know there are those out there who believe in life at conception, as well as welfare. Good on them. But I still have an issue with those people, because they still want to impose a pregnancy on a woman when it's really none of their business. What does it matter to them if a woman gets an abortion?
The most ridiculous argument I've heard yet is that the child could grow up to be a rocket scientist, or the prime minister, or the curer of aids or whatever. Yeah, and it could also grow up to be a complete delinquent. And what about all the "potential" children missing out on life from men masturbating, or women menstruating? Are we going to outlaw those things next? It's just stupidity.
Bah! It's early in the morning. I can't believe I just made so many basic grammatical errors. I hang my head in shame.
They can think the clump of cells is a cognitive child for all I care.
I don't think anyone said anything about it being cognitive, Puss.
What does it matter to them if a woman gets an abortion?
It's a moral opposition to the wilful destruction of a human life under any circumstances.
But I still have an issue with those people, because they still want to impose a pregnancy on a woman
100% agree - with pretty much everything else you said, too.
**
Then Alex, you must also lack certainty that the teapot is impossible.
Correct, Perseus. Hence, teapot agnostic. And if the many worlds theory of physics is correct (and more importantly, if I understand it correctly), there's no reason why I should be certain. Maybe you should watch the video in Boogeyman's link.
And yet these people who believe in God exert massive influence on society. It's wack...
I believe agnosticism validates the religious.
Atheism tells them to shut the fuck up, and put their great stories under the heading, 'Great Fairy Tales'.
So, it doesn't really matter whether your views are correct or not, since you're fighting a moral war against the evils of religion that's too important to lose?
Some of you seem to have a problem with me saying God does not exist, and dismiss me as intellectually lazy.
Then why not attack the religious for being just as 'pompous' as me. It's all around you. Every day. For flip's sake, they recite the Lord's Prayer at the opening of Parliament. Write a letter to your local member and say, "You are as much a zealot as this bloke Perseus is." When a church erects a massive billboard saying 'Jesus loves you," why aren't you making a fuss about it, as you are here about my opposite stance?
It has always struck me as odd that religious people are allowed to say anything they want, but the second an atheist uses equally certain language, we are accused of being 'intolerant' and 'zealots'... Whereas I like to pompously align myself with the bloke who said, "The emporer has no clothes."
Alex - you are logicaly correct in maintaining that there could be a God / Teapot, but in your heart of hearts, do you think there is a God / Teapot? And if you don't think there really is a God / Teapot, why not just say it?
There is no teapot! Come on, we all know that.
There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. We all know that too.
There is no God, either. "YOU POMPOUS ZEALOT!" they yell.
Sigh.
Oh, and Boogeyman... what's wrong with quoting Bertrand Russell (or anyone else for that matter) to illustrate/support my point?
You seriously have a problem with quoting other people? Really?
Or do you think we shouldn't read / absorb / be inspired by anyone else but our own inner thought?
Sheesh. May as well never read another book in my life.
When it comes to science, my money's on Alex (sorry squib. I back you for all things poetry/writerly.)
hmmmph! I have watched over one hundred episodes of Star Trek for your information. I also read New Scientist although it's true I find quantum physics a bit brain hurty
It does tend to be a male thing and that's why I hate barbeques and the like where I'm stuck with the women because I just know the men might be talking about something half interesting (with the exception of sport)
There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. We all know that too.
Take that back!
Perseus' emphatic denial of the possibility of God could only be termed as atheism
There have been arguments on how to define Atheism. One argument is to divide Atheists into implicit and explicit. An implicit Atheist does not have theistic belief but has not consciously rejected it either. Babies are born implicit Atheists.
Explicit atheists to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.
Other definitions include weak and strong Atheists, positive and negative. Weak Atheism includes all other forms of non-theism and under this definition most Agnostics qualify as weak Atheists.
We are all on the good ship Atheism, and it has lots of cabins.
...the men might be talking about something half interesting (with the exception of sport)
You take that back!
GO TIGES!
I long ago realised that trying to argue with Perseus on religion is pointless, because he is just like those bigoted proselytising one-eyed religious zealots who can't accept any viewpoint different from their own.
This is the most hilarious defense for Religious debate I've ever heard. I hear it often.
Because it implies the discussion is based purely on views and opinions and not demonstrable and repeatable facts.
There is no God. That's the scientific answer. You can't even construct a hypothesis from centuries of discussion on the topic.
I don't think anyone said anything about it being cognitive, Puss.
No, no one here said that, Alex. Look up some pro-life forums though, and you will see how many out there think differently.
It has always struck me as odd that religious people are allowed to say anything they want, but the second an atheist uses equally certain language, we are accused of being 'intolerant' and 'zealots'... Whereas I like to pompously align myself with the bloke who said, "The emporer has no clothes."
Um, so this is really about you championing the fight against atheist persecution? And you want atheism to be held in the same regard as the religious beliefs that you yourself have such contempt for? Wait, don't you call religious people cunts all the time?
Perseus, I don't think your beliefs are any worse or more wrong than religious people. The reason you don't see me arguing with them is because there aren't any here to argue with. And yes, my heart of hearts tells me that God isn't real - I've already said that I live my life under the assumption that he isn't. But you see, my head of heads tells me that it's wrong for me to completely reject the possibility of things that gut instinct tells me are against common sense. If I did that, I'd also have to start throwing away large portions of theoretical physics; and that would leave me with an essentially classical mechanical model of the universe that's somewhat broken and a bit unfixable.
There is no God. That's the scientific answer.
Maybe you should watch the video too, RandomGit.
Oh, and what's your favourite Star Trek series, Squib?
Alex, so far I've only watched the complete USS Enterprise series. I'm watching them in chronological order (when they were set rather than when they were produced). So now I'm watching the original series. It's not very good so far. The women are all wearing mini dresses and taking food around on trays and the aliens look like this
Voyager series was my favouite. Seven of Nine... HOT!
**
Alex - I watched the video. It has nothing to do with a sentient God. A God that knows He exists, and makes choices. It is belief in that entity I am arguing against.
Voyager series was my favouite
Nerd
Perseus, you watched part 2 as well, right. The part about how infinity contains all states that could be derived within the physical confines of a single universe. And how infinity can then be expanded to derive universes with a range of all possible physical confines. Leaving you with a final dimension that contains all possibilities.
All possibilities. I assume that means that even if it is impossible for God to exist within our universe, it must almost certainly exists somewhere within reality.
**
The portrayal of women and aliens aside, I reckon the original Star Trek's great, because it's got that "It's just a stupid TV show and nobody's going to remember it in 5 years, anyway" feel to it.
I also liked Seven of Nine for some reason. Janeway, too.
Then why not attack the religious for being just as 'pompous' as me
If anyone here was showing - as Melba described - as much arrogance, doggedness and absolutism about there being a God as Pers has been about there not being a God, they'd be as 'attacked' as well, but nobody has.
why I hate barbeques and the like where I'm stuck with the women because I just know the men might be talking about something half interesting (with the exception of sport)
Gees Squib, your female friends at bbq's must be pretty dull.
DS9 was and still is my favourite of the 5 Star Trek series. Enterprise was a load crap - the only thing interesting in it was the crew used any excuse to get their kit off all the time & show off their overbuffed bodies.
Now, did someone say something about us all getting naked??
Yeah, I watched Part II, and it was interesting.
I still don't think it has anything to do with the God notion as is commonly noted / worshipped / believed in.
A God (or a cosmos) that makes choices in and of itself. Supernatural sentience, in the "I think therefore I am" mould, leading to 'God's will' or as the hippies / new age people would put it, "It was meant to happen." The video describes a scenario where things might well be 'meant to happen' but it is still not a singular supernatural entity deciding these things...
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done,
in earth
Insipid, wicked words.
Perseus, as a teapot agnostic, I'm also of the view that it's unwise for people to believe in, follow or worship something that is theoretically possible but presents no measurable presence or bearing on the world as we practically understand it. It seems to me that there is little more than a hair's breadth between where you and I stand and we are arguing about who is on the right side of it.
The difference being you validate them by allowing the scientific possibility that they may be right (which gives them license to do all manner of nuff things), whereas I want them all locked up in a loony bin.
Alex, those videos were heavy on philosophy and light on science.
Also, I found the Deveney tweets amusing as contradiction jokes drawing attention to an underlying hypocrisy.
you validate them by allowing the scientific possibility that they may be right
Perseus, as a teapot agnostic, I'm also of the view that it's unwise for people to believe in, follow or worship something that is theoretically possible but presents no measurable presence or bearing on the world as we practically understand it.
That's the best I can do. I can't completely dismiss something because I find it distasteful and inconvenient to my personal views on how the world should be.
Oh, RG, As Boogeyman said, I thought the videos were a good starting point. There's plenty of literature around about the many worlds theory, string and m theory and so forth, and how they relate to quantum mechanics - which (as far as I know) is currently the best possible explanation for the occurrence of certain phenomena that are observed at the sub-atomic scale.
Post a Comment