News coverage

[Chris Wilkins]

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

Okay. But doesn't he have the right to go and organises conferences and meetings to discuss what he believes? 'Cause I am certain he does believe what he says and is not intentionally lying.

Sure, if he held people in small cells with bright lights, and deprived them of food and sleep while playing his speeches on a perpetual loop, that would be bad and could be considered indoctrination. But I'm not sure he does that. I do know that some Christians do, sure. And that sucks.

But, as I said, even if it is loony as hell, he is actually allowed to say whatever he likes wherever he likes to whoever he likes. In fact, in the US it is in their consitution.

On top of that, isn't creationism totally banned in schools and universities in the US? Wasn't it a creationist judge who threw out "intelligent design" from getting into the schools only a few years ago? So what is the problem here?

Just a thought. And please stay nice.

[95Theses]

As I said, I defend his right to say it.

Doesn't stop it being unmitigated bollocks of the highest order though.

[Babel]

As I said, I defend his right to say it.

Doesn't stop it being unmitigated bollocks of the highest order though.

or deprive people of the right expressing their view on the matter.

[Mazille]

In case you've missed it, Chris.

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]

As I said, I defend his right to say it.

Doesn't stop it being unmitigated bollocks of the highest order though.

Oh, totally. In fact you have the right to say it is complete bollocks. What I am wondering about are all the comments that call him arsehole, f...., c....., dimwit, retard, etc, etc.

There is totally a difference between disagreeing with what he says and attacking him personally. And that is really what my question is about: do you think that some people should have kept this offensive stuff to themselves rather than filling pages and pages on PZ Myers blog?

Again, in the public eye when people do this it makes you guys seem like the rabid whack jobs. Which is, I am assuming, the total opposite of what you want to present.

Sorry, but there it is.

[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?

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.

I totally understand "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?". However that is fine if both sides accept that dictum, Ken Ham does not so he can't hide behind it in my opinion. He denies everything I believe in and has spent £25million dollars attempting to destroy my world view. I know this is an extreme point but would a Jew standing outside the a gas chamber agree with "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" I think not. So where does the line differentiating the passive to aggressive response lie? Well for each person that will be different.

I fully understand your behaviour with your friend and it is exactly what I do. If they however were to start a discussion about theism I wouldn't hold back on expressing my own view to them politely. If Ken kept his views to himself then I would have no problem with him and his ilk, it's when he starts spending money on diorama's with children playing with dinosaurs that he looses all right to public respect in my view.

I do agree that being rude to people will never really a good idea or tactic but it is, unfortunately, a very human trait.

[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.

I totally understand "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?". However that is fine if both sides accept that dictum, Ken Ham does not so he can't hide behind it in my opinion. He denies everything I believe in and has spent £25million dollars attempting to destroy my world view. I know this is an extreme point but would a Jew standing outside the a gas chamber agree with "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" I think not. So where does the line differentiating the passive to aggressive response lie? Well for each person that will be different.

I fully understand your behaviour with your friend and it is exactly what I do. If they however were to start a discussion about theism I wouldn't hold back on expressing my own view to them politely. If Ken kept his views to himself then I would have no problem with him and his ilk, it's when he starts spending money on diorama's with children playing with dinosaurs that he looses all right to public respect in my view.

I do agree that being rude to people will never really a good idea or tactic but it is, unfortunately, a very human trait.

I also think it is a trait of the modern internet. Dunno why, but seems to be.

[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?

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.

I totally understand "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?". However that is fine if both sides accept that dictum, Ken Ham does not so he can't hide behind it in my opinion. He denies everything I believe in and has spent £25million dollars attempting to destroy my world view. I know this is an extreme point but would a Jew standing outside the a gas chamber agree with "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" I think not. So where does the line differentiating the passive to aggressive response lie? Well for each person that will be different.

I fully understand your behaviour with your friend and it is exactly what I do. If they however were to start a discussion about theism I wouldn't hold back on expressing my own view to them politely. If Ken kept his views to himself then I would have no problem with him and his ilk, it's when he starts spending money on diorama's with children playing with dinosaurs that he looses all right to public respect in my view.

I do agree that being rude to people will never really a good idea or tactic but it is, unfortunately, a very human trait.

I also think it is a trait of the modern internet. Dunno why, but seems to be.

I would agree that Internet anonymity is part of it in that it gives every hot head the opportunity to shoot their mouth off, while their head is hot and that may be only for a moment. Trouble is the screaming at the telly soon forgotten does not go away when it it typed into a blog.

[klr]

As I said, I defend his right to say it.

Doesn't stop it being unmitigated bollocks of the highest order though.

Oh, totally. In fact you have the right to say it is complete bollocks. What I am wondering about are all the comments that call him arsehole, f...., c....., dimwit, retard, etc, etc.

There is totally a difference between disagreeing with what he says and attacking him personally. And that is really what my question is about: do you think that some people should have kept this offensive stuff to themselves rather than filling pages and pages on PZ Myers blog?

Again, in the public eye when people do this it makes you guys seem like the rabid whack jobs. Which is, I am assuming, is the total opposite of what you want to present.

Sorry, but there it is.

Speaking as a former long-time staff member, I'll give my "take" on this one. Just about any sort of insult was allowed against someone as long as they were not a member of the site - although things such as hate speech were verboten. RD himself has stated publicly that he thinks holocaust deniers and their ilk should be allowed the freedom to speak and publish, but (understandably), he does not allow this on his own web site. Insults against fellow members were not allowed on the forum, on the grounds that the forum would otherwise cease to function as a discussion arena. But outsiders ... different matter. So if someone wanted to mouth off against (say) George Bush, then they could do so with gusto. I always had mixed feelings on this. On the one side, there's free speech (something which RD is a staunch supporter of). On the other side, I am no fan of gratuitous language, not when one is supposed to be engaging in serious discourse. Ultimately though, I was and still am of the view that referring to a public figure in colourful terms will not win you any debates. It might be funny at times, it might help convey your feelings, but in an arena focused on rational debate, it shouldn't win you any points.

It was not unknown for RD himself to trash his opponents when posting on the forum or commenting the front page articles. He wouldn't have used the very strong language that you've alluded to, but it would have been still serious enough, especially given that he is noted for his careful use of the written and spoken word.

[Millefleur]

Yay, my quote made it into the Tetlegraphs online article!

Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.

Sorry, I'm quite pleased!

[Chris Wilkins]

Speaking as a former long-time staff member, I'll give my "take" on this one. Just about any sort of insult was allowed against someone as long as they were not a member of the site - although things such as hate speech were verboten. RD himself has stated publicly that he thinks holocaust deniers and their ilk should be allowed the freedom to speak and publish, but (understandably), he does not allow this on his own web site. Insults against fellow members were not allowed on the forum, on the grounds that the forum would otherwise cease to function as a discussion arena. But outsiders ... different matter. So if someone wanted to mouth off against (say) George Bush, then they could do so with gusto. I always had mixed feelings on this. On the one side, there's free speech (something which RD is a staunch supporter of). On the other side, I am no fan of gratuitous language, not when one is supposed to be engaging in serious discourse. Ultimately though, I was and still am of the view that referring to a public figure in colourful terms will not win you any debates. It might be funny at times, it might help convey your feelings, but in an arena focused on rational debate, it shouldn't win you any points.

It was not unknown for RD himself to trash his opponents when posting on the forum or commenting the front page articles. He wouldn't have used the very strong language that you've alluded to, but it would have been still serious enough, especially given that he is noted for his careful use of the written and spoken word.

Well, it has already been pointed out that RD is being hypocritical when he complained about being abused considering how he has dished it out over the years.

However, thanks for clearing up the point about abuse on the RD site. I was never there so I didn't know.

Perhaps I was just shocked (I was) at the level of talk against Josh Timonen and RD here in this forum. I think what he has done is contemptable, and certainly I would have some choice words to say to him face-to-face where there is no record of what I say. Putting it on a website? That is, frankly, not stopping to think before you hit the "send" button.

Then again, I'm a journo. And if all the abuse hadn't been so juicy it wouldn't have made it into the news, that's for sure.

In fact, the best example: If RD had never posted his announcement on the forum this would now be dead, cold as the grave. Whoever is his PR person should be fired.

[Thinking Aloud]

Chris W: don't forget Mazille's response above! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 56#p362079

[Mazille]

Chris W: don't forget Mazille's response above! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 56#p362079

I already sent him a PM as this thread is rather busy.

[Chris Wilkins]

Chris W: don't forget Mazille's response above! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 56#p362079

Nope. Got it.

[Witticism]

A bit of vanity and pining for the fjords forum ...

This is me rigorously defending the Prof: (sorry only way I could get it)

I just wish I had the opportunity to rip apart RD's last post on the forum in a manner such as I did above in defending him ... it would be the RESPECTFUL thing to do