News coverage

[virphen]

Chris, have you seen this:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/rdf/

You might get a good idea of the feelings of a wider range of people if you go through it.

Cheers

[95Theses]

Actually, I have to disagree with you. Such a story is of interest to newspapers. The "human touch" you know. By giving a specific story about a specific person it puts real meat on the bones of any story.

Thanks a ton for putting this up here.

From RDF :

14 year old kid having huge problems with fundamentalist parents seeks help - http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 2&t=109935

Goodness

When you read through that thread, do the posters responding to that kid sound like the way Richard portrays us in the 'Outrage' article?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

It really isn't just about a bunch of looney atheists getting their panties in a twist because they are 'scared of change'

[CJ]

Fortunately some of my posts were quoted, here is one example debating with a member who is/was an evolution denier.

[CJ]

This is an example of a welcome thread, now vandalised.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 3#p2559933

[CJ]

Chris, have you seen this:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/rdf/

You might get a good idea of the feelings of a wider range of people if you go through it.

Cheers

Yes I have seen that, but thanks for the heads up, better to be told twice than not at all.

This was my contribution.

[Chris Wilkins]

Okay. On another note, I have a knarley question for you all then?

Who is Ken Ham? What are your opinions about him? And just because he thinks things that are different to yours, and perhaps you might even think he is a loony, does that give permission to people to abuse the shite out of him in public such as on the PZ Myers forum?

I say this from this perspective. I think evolution is fact, and that Charles Darwin had some cracking ideas. However, some good friends of mine are Christians and, I suspect, quite committed to this. Yet whenever we get together we have a great time, we never really discuss these issues, and we certainly don't abuse each other for them.

Is it possible that the nasty things said about him, just taking him as an example, are laying it on a bit thick?

I actually pose that doing such things actually weakens the case of evolution and science in the eyes of public opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.

[CJ]

The story of when I was spoken to by police in leeds for facing down a street preacher, utterly on topic and now ruined.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 8#p1743338

[CJ]

Okay. On another note, I have a knarley question for you all then?

Who is Ken Ham? What are your opinions about him? And just because he thinks things that are different to yours, and perhaps you might even think he is a loony, does that give permission to people to abuse the shite out of him in public such as on the PZ Myers forum?

I say this from this perspective. I think evolution is fact, and that Charles Darwin had some cracking ideas. However, some good friends of mine are Christians and, I suspect, quite committed to this. Yet whenever we get together we have a great time, we never really discuss these issues, and we certainly don't abuse each other for them.

Is it possible that the nasty things said about him, just taking him as an example, are laying it on a bit thick?

I actually pose that doing such things actually weakens the case of evolution and science in the eyes of public opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.

When faced with extreme theists such as Ken Ham normally reasonable and rational people loose perspective, theist and atheist, his view ARE delusional. I'd give you an example of delusional definitions but the post has been deleted. Loosing one's temper with the likes of Ken Ham does give theists ammunition there is no doubt about that. The thing is when I joined RDF in Jan 2007 I didn't know who Ken Ham was, or AiG or the Discovery Institute (I was so impressed by their web site I nearly added it to Evolution Resources ) and I had no appreciation of the depths theistic delusion could go, not a clue!

I do agree that to change a persons mind that one can not be perceived as an enemy, neutral or a friend but not an enemy and if one is trying to get a person who believes what Ken Ham says to change their mind then slagging Ken off is a very poor idea. However on a public level Ken sticks his ludicrous anti-science BS out there for all to see and he deserves everything he gets in the public arena.

Just a thought, if you raised the subject of Ken Ham's views with your friends what do you think their reaction would be? Do you think any of your friends would agree with him and if so why?

[virphen]

The interesting question for me about people like Ham is how much of it they actually believe themselves. We all know that being a religious leader can be a startlingly lucrative field. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a great number of them knew they were lying but didn't care, because they know that it just rakes in the cash.

[CJ]

The interesting question for me about people like Ham is how much of it they actually believe themselves. We all know that being a religious leader can be a startlingly lucrative field. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a great number of them knew they were lying but didn't care, because they know that it just rakes in the cash.

All religions are run by evil atheists! Didn't you know that!

[Mazille]

As promised I'll show you some of the stuff that now lies in ruins. Obviously I can't link to any of my posts, since they were all deleted (I'd have loved to link you to the rules I worked out for the Science Writing Competition) but I can show you some of the amazing articles that were written for it.
There you go:

Some scientific articles:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0#p2698606
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0#p2700730

A hilarious and thoughtful poem about Earth - Our home, bacteria and our role on this planet:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0#p2748011

A whole board game (!) that a member invented for the competition. Learn about evolution by doing it:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0#p2749392

[Chris Wilkins]

Okay. On another note, I have a knarley question for you all then?

Who is Ken Ham? What are your opinions about him? And just because he thinks things that are different to yours, and perhaps you might even think he is a loony, does that give permission to people to abuse the shite out of him in public such as on the PZ Myers forum?

I say this from this perspective. I think evolution is fact, and that Charles Darwin had some cracking ideas. However, some good friends of mine are Christians and, I suspect, quite committed to this. Yet whenever we get together we have a great time, we never really discuss these issues, and we certainly don't abuse each other for them.

Is it possible that the nasty things said about him, just taking him as an example, are laying it on a bit thick?

I actually pose that doing such things actually weakens the case of evolution and science in the eyes of public opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.

When faced with extreme theists such as Ken Ham normally reasonable and rational people loose perspective, theist and atheist, his view ARE delusional. I'd give you an example of delusional definitions but the post has been deleted. Loosing one's temper with the likes of Ken Ham does give theists ammunition there is no doubt about that. The thing is when I joined RDF in Jan 2007 I didn't know who Ken Ham was, or AiG or the Discovery Institute (I was so impressed by their web site I nearly added it to Evolution Resources ) and I had no appreciation of the depths theistic delusion could go, not a clue!

I do agree that to change a persons mind that one can not be perceived as an enemy, neutral or a friend but not an enemy and if one is trying to get a person who believes what Ken Ham says to change their mind then slagging Ken off is a very poor idea. However on a public level Ken sticks his ludicrous anti-science BS out there for all to see and he deserves everything he gets in the public arena.

Just a thought, if you raised the subject of Ken Ham's views with your friends what do you think their reaction would be? Do you think any of your friends would agree with him and if so why?

You know, it works like this. I wouldn't raise it with my friends because we both know and acknowledge we believe different things, and we are actually tolerant of each others' right to think what they like. And we want to stay friends.

Reminds of when I was in the Australian Army Reserve. There was an upspoken rule that soldiers were not to discuss polotics or religion because it always led to fights.

If I was to say to you that I believe in fairies and the moon is really made of green cheese, there is no way you have the right to abuse the hell out of me. And vica versa.

Regards what Ken Ham says, okay. I get it. You don't agree with him. But what ever happened to: "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" I wish I could remember who said that.

Again, as I said, this is an intentionally pointed question, so please be nice.

[95Theses]

I totally defend his right to say it.

however, when it can be shown, with evidence, that he is deliberately lying and misrepresenting the actual science, it is hard to have respect for the man.

He stands on the looney fringe of christianity, absolutely convinced (or pretending to be) that the earth is 6,000 years old, and 4,000 years ago a drunken sailor built a wooden barge the size of an aircraft carrier, filled it with sheep and dinosaurs who lived side by side peacefully for 40 days, and then emerged onto the sodden apocalyptic wasteland to start all over again.

It's hard to have patience with that degree of stupidity to be honest, but it's what the debunking creationism forum was for. There are a couple of useful formal debates on the matter like this one :

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 23&t=10675

And as I said a whole section of the site that was dedicated to exposing it for the pernicious lies that it is. :

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewforum.php?f=46

For example, Creationists will tell you that Radiometric dating (of which C14 dating is one type) is basically hogwash, because it happens to disagree with what their book tells them. Clai posted this rather nice explanation of why it isn't hogwash here :

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 6&t=110125

there is a huge difference between you not arguing with your friends in the pub, which is totally understandable, and us having somewhere to debunk the outright lies for Jeesus some of these clowns like Ken Ham preach to the credulous

[klazmon]

Okay. On another note, I have a knarley question for you all then?

Who is Ken Ham? What are your opinions about him? And just because he thinks things that are different to yours, and perhaps you might even think he is a loony, does that give permission to people to abuse the shite out of him in public such as on the PZ Myers forum?

I say this from this perspective. I think evolution is fact, and that Charles Darwin had some cracking ideas. However, some good friends of mine are Christians and, I suspect, quite committed to this. Yet whenever we get together we have a great time, we never really discuss these issues, and we certainly don't abuse each other for them.

Is it possible that the nasty things said about him, just taking him as an example, are laying it on a bit thick?

I actually pose that doing such things actually weakens the case of evolution and science in the eyes of public opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.

When faced with extreme theists such as Ken Ham normally reasonable and rational people loose perspective, theist and atheist, his view ARE delusional. I'd give you an example of delusional definitions but the post has been deleted. Loosing one's temper with the likes of Ken Ham does give theists ammunition there is no doubt about that. The thing is when I joined RDF in Jan 2007 I didn't know who Ken Ham was, or AiG or the Discovery Institute (I was so impressed by their web site I nearly added it to Evolution Resources ) and I had no appreciation of the depths theistic delusion could go, not a clue!

I do agree that to change a persons mind that one can not be perceived as an enemy, neutral or a friend but not an enemy and if one is trying to get a person who believes what Ken Ham says to change their mind then slagging Ken off is a very poor idea. However on a public level Ken sticks his ludicrous anti-science BS out there for all to see and he deserves everything he gets in the public arena.

Just a thought, if you raised the subject of Ken Ham's views with your friends what do you think their reaction would be? Do you think any of your friends would agree with him and if so why?

You know, it works like this. I wouldn't raise it with my friends because we both know and acknowledge we believe different things, and we are actually tolerant of each others' right to think what they like. And we want to stay friends.

Reminds of when I was in the Australian Army Reserve. There was an upspoken rule that soldiers were not to discuss polotics or religion because it always led to fights.

If I was to say to you that I believe in fairies and the moon is really made of green cheese, there is no way you have the right to abuse the hell out of me. And vica versa.

Regards what Ken Ham says, okay. I get it. You don't agree with him. But what ever happened to: "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" I wish I could remember who said that.

Again, as I said, this is an intentionally pointed question, so please be nice.

Ham and his ilk are attempting to have their creationism taught as science in US public schools and ban the reaching of evolution. That is what annoys people. After US courts declared teaching creationism in public schools was illegal under the US constitution, they creationists regrouped and had another go under the banner of intelligent design which was again given the boot by the courts (see below). The latest scam they are attempting is called 'teach the controversy'.

Familiarise yourself with Kitzmiller vs Dover for the gory details of the intelligent design case and by the way don't think the UK or other countries are immune to this stuff.


It isn't a matter of what these loonies are saying, it's about what they are doing and they have plenty of pull in politics an the cash from their followers. If they got away with it there would be no difference in letting schools (and probably government) being taken over by the Teleban.

[95Theses]

And here is a detailed response to Intelligent Design :

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... f=46&t=755

This is the sort of thing we are up in arms about losing, not the frivolous off topic stuff.