3301
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 14:23:00
On Wed, October 4, 2006 14:07, Roger Stanyard said:
> Just as an aside, I assume that you mean a European provider is
> better because of the latency problem with using servers in the USA.
Yes. I have been burned on this issue once before when I was one of the
"board members" for the anti-psuedoscience site, http://www.hallofmaat.com
. I would prefer not to be burnt again.
> The only issue I have is the size of the final bill. We don't have a
> budget and I don't want us to end up with a bill of £200 plus split
> between three or four individuals.
I can provide manual and scholarly assistance, but count me out on money.
I simply do not have any cash to spare:-(
3302
Lenny Flank
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 13:23:00
>> I agree that we do need religious people in here - but they should be
> prepared to defend their reasoning as atheists defend theirs.
Why? What has that to do with fighting creationists? Do you expect
Marxists who come here to defend their Marxism before they can fight
creationism? Do you expect Arabs or Israelis who come here to defend
their respective sides before they can fight creationism? Do you
expect people who prefer chocalate ice cream to vanilla to defend
their views before they can fight creationism?
Y'all are getting sidetracked into irrelevant issues that don't help.
We're here to fight creationists. We're NOT here to stamp out
religion, or to "correct" every theological opinion that someone
doesn't like.
Adjust your Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) meters. Fight with
your enemies, not with your friends.
And anyone who has a different set of enemies than the purpose of
this list (creationists on one side, everyone else on the other),
perhaps would be happier somewhere else.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3303
Mikey Brass
Book recommendations
04/10/2006 19:01:00
Realised something which the website is sorely lacking: a list of
recommended readings.
I would suggest http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc/ .
3304
ukantic
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 19:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> I'll also be quite forthwright about it - the Dawkins bashing is a
> real issue for me. Richard is one of my personal heroes, and I really
> feel that I can't find it in myself to be paying for and supporting a
> webserver that people then use to have a pop at him...
>
Yes Ian, I agree entirely. All this Dawkings bashing & talk of
militant atheists is really beginning to seriously piss me off. I know
there is a tendency for the two extremes to tune in to anything they
see as criticism & respond, leading to time wasting disputes; but how
do you not respond? Are we going to allow these criticisms to go
unchallenged? Are we really going to allow what sounds like nothing
more than creationist propaganda to be accepted as the norm on this forum?
Perhaps the answer is to let the Dawkins bashers cough up the money
(and leave them to it).
Alan.
3305
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 20:01:00
ukantic wrote:
> Perhaps the answer is to let the Dawkins bashers cough up the money
> (and leave them to it).
I do think Dawkins goes too far. However, this is *not* the time or
place for such discussions and it is about "time" certain people realise it.
3306
George Jelliss
Ken Ham Points the Gun at Atheists
04/10/2006 20:23:00
Have you seen the latest Answers in Genesis home page? Their latest
slogan, jumping on the issue of all the school shootings in the US,
is: "If you don't matter to God you dont matter ...!"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/you-matter-to-god
The artwork shows a young man pointing a gun straight at the viewer.
Let's hope his followers don't take it too literally!
3307
George Jelliss
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 20:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jon_12091" <jon_12091@...>
wrote:
>
> As for Dawkins, his Chair is in the public understanding of
> science,
> for the last few years at least I have heard nothing from him in
> the
> media on that subject and seems only to turn up when he's punting
> his
> latest book. In many ways behaviour not too dissemler to that of
> the "fellows" of the DI churning out pulp for their fan base....
> I'd
> go as far as to say David Attenbourgh probably achieves more to
> close
> out the 'wedge' in this country with an hours voiceover than
> Dawkins
> has ever achieved....
>
> Evolution = Aetheism is a meaningless pejorative regardless of
> which side of the debate says it.
> ///
I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is Reason
implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
3308
Mikey Brass
Re: Ken Ham Points the Gun at Atheists
04/10/2006 20:33:00
Good god that made me sick.
3309
ukantic
Reply to Brian,
04/10/2006 20:50:00
Yes sorry Brian, I have been busy recently & I must admit to having
problems keeping up with the volume of e-mails now that the group has
grown.
You mentioned keywords for the wiki. I am sure there is definitely a
way of doing this & I am looking into it. I get the impression that in
the earlier version (V1) there was some code which needed to be added
via the cookbook folder, but that in later versions it is built in.
However, I am having trouble finding information on it.
Personally, I am just content to wait for Google to pick me up.
Ranking only becomes relevant if you are competing with keywords
against many competitors. Just to test this theory I typed "trinity
academy" + creationism into Google earlier & up popped my entries at
the top. Try to get BCSE etc on every page, sooner or later Google
will pick it up.
The wiki is based on the principle, outlined by the author of ensuring
a minimal set of straightforward core functions enhanced by adding
coded modules to either the skins or cookbook folder. For instance,
the blue skin in use at the moment is called Triad & that has been
added to the skins folder & activated. The visitor counter is a
receipt added to the cookbook folder & activated. There are many such
add-ons, many developed by third party programmers. In fact anyone can
add these to the site.
In answer to some of the questions:
Yes, a domain ordered by 1 & 1 and having no associated web space can
be redirected onto another URL. That's how blackshadow.co.uk is
working. It is redirecting onto blackshadow.me.uk which has web space.
However, the URL ideally (for various reasons) needs to be in with the
web space.
Images can be added to the site by linking to other web space where
they are saved. For example, there is Flickr & Photobucket & probably
dozens more. Just place the URL of the image into the page. Prefix
with, (not ) to centralise it. Prefix with either
(left float) or (right float) to have the follow-on
text float around it. Make sure it is not too large & resize if necessary.
I am perfectly happy to continue hosting the wiki & even adding a
.co.uk domain which is inexpensive. However, I would expect a
contribution to one of the more expensive domains. I would also
consider purchasing the .co.uk (& redirecting it) as well as the .org
(or whatever) as this is what many people will find easiest to
remember. Even TIS have done this.
Failing that, if you go for fresh web space, just remember that the
prices for domains can be much higher than one & one, even if the web
space is cheaper, which is worth keeping in mind when comparing
prices. Also ensure that has at least on MySQL database as I am pretty
sure you will need this for any forum you might want to integrate in.
Alan.
3310
John Germain
RE: Reply to Brian,
04/10/2006 21:14:00
.org.uk must be the best choice: I doubt we'd get .sch/.edu!
.co is purely commercial.
By all means own both, if only to avoid cybersquatters.
.com would be equally worthwhile.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
ukantic
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:50 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Reply to Brian,
Yes sorry Brian, I have been busy recently & I must admit to having
problems keeping up with the volume of e-mails now that the group has
grown.
You mentioned keywords for the wiki. I am sure there is definitely a
way of doing this & I am looking into it. I get the impression that in
the earlier version (V1) there was some code which needed to be added
via the cookbook folder, but that in later versions it is built in.
However, I am having trouble finding information on it.
Personally, I am just content to wait for Google to pick me up.
Ranking only becomes relevant if you are competing with keywords
against many competitors. Just to test this theory I typed "trinity
academy" + creationism into Google earlier & up popped my entries at
the top. Try to get BCSE etc on every page, sooner or later Google
will pick it up.
The wiki is based on the principle, outlined by the author of ensuring
a minimal set of straightforward core functions enhanced by adding
coded modules to either the skins or cookbook folder. For instance,
the blue skin in use at the moment is called Triad & that has been
added to the skins folder & activated. The visitor counter is a
receipt added to the cookbook folder & activated. There are many such
add-ons, many developed by third party programmers. In fact anyone can
add these to the site.
In answer to some of the questions:
Yes, a domain ordered by 1 & 1 and having no associated web space can
be redirected onto another URL. That's how blackshadow.co.uk is
working. It is redirecting onto blackshadow.me.uk which has web space.
However, the URL ideally (for various reasons) needs to be in with the
web space.
Images can be added to the site by linking to other web space where
they are saved. For example, there is Flickr & Photobucket & probably
dozens more. Just place the URL of the image into the page. Prefix
with, (not ) to centralise it. Prefix with either
(left float) or (right float) to have the follow-on
text float around it. Make sure it is not too large & resize if necessary.
I am perfectly happy to continue hosting the wiki & even adding a
.co.uk domain which is inexpensive. However, I would expect a
contribution to one of the more expensive domains. I would also
consider purchasing the .co.uk (& redirecting it) as well as the .org
(or whatever) as this is what many people will find easiest to
remember. Even TIS have done this.
Failing that, if you go for fresh web space, just remember that the
prices for domains can be much higher than one & one, even if the web
space is cheaper, which is worth keeping in mind when comparing
prices. Also ensure that has at least on MySQL database as I am pretty
sure you will need this for any forum you might want to integrate in.
Alan.
Yahoo! Groups Links
3311
John Germain
RE: Ken Ham Points the Gun at Atheists
04/10/2006 21:03:00
Ham is morphing into some bizarre offspring of Ned Kelly and Paul Hogan with the
cultural
nous of Sir Les Patterson and the swimming ability of Rod Harris.
How else could he have escaped the Ark?
BTW, a little incher in the Torygraph today made reference to a school's Noah's
Ark
project having to be abandoned due to - errmm - inclement weather.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mikey
Brass
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:34 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Ken Ham Points the Gun at Atheists
Good god that made me sick.
Yahoo! Groups Links
3312
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 20:52:00
I am seriously wanting to bang heads together...
3313
John Germain
RE: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 21:43:00
Is one of them mine?
Am I missing something?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mikey
Brass
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:53 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
I am seriously wanting to bang heads together...
Yahoo! Groups Links
3314
oeditor
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 21:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> I am seriously wanting to bang heads together...
>
Which heads had you in mind? Michael's gone, so are we to listen out
for the sound of one head banging?
Not a violent reaction, just wondering why you didn't quote what
you're objecting to. So that we'd know.
Brian
3315
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 21:49:00
John Germain wrote:
> Is one of them mine?
No, but this list needs to take heed of Lenny and Roger's posts on the
subject fast...
3316
Roger Stanyard
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 22:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
>
> I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
> The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is Reason
> implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
I couldn't agree more but he doesn't give a stuff about us. Do you
really think any of us are ever going to ge a message in our in box
from him?
Why do you think Claire Enders is backing him?
3317
Roger Stanyard
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 21:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@> wrote:
> >
>
> > I'll also be quite forthwright about it - the Dawkins bashing is a
> > real issue for me. Richard is one of my personal heroes, and I
really
> > feel that I can't find it in myself to be paying for and
supporting a
> > webserver that people then use to have a pop at him...
> >
>
> Yes Ian, I agree entirely. All this Dawkings bashing & talk of
> militant atheists
There is some very simple issues here.
1. Has Dawkins backed us? (answer No!)
2. Do you want Claire Enders involved? (Answer, start living in the
real world!)
Dawkins is 65 and a success and in it for the money. He's a great
biologist. We are not great biologists.
We have to do what we are doing without him. He is irrelevant to what
we are trying to do.
Roger
3318
John Germain
RE: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 22:04:00
Well, it seems that we are all grownups, so don't do my trick anD be allusive,
spit it
out!
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mikey
Brass
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:49 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
John Germain wrote:
> Is one of them mine?
No, but this list needs to take heed of Lenny and Roger's posts on the
subject fast...
Yahoo! Groups Links
3319
John Germain
RE: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 22:14:00
I find CE as marketer or an Orchestra member.
IS this a good or a bad thing?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:01 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
>
> I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
> The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is Reason
> implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
I couldn't agree more but he doesn't give a stuff about us. Do you
really think any of us are ever going to ge a message in our in box
from him?
Why do you think Claire Enders is backing him?
Yahoo! Groups Links
3320
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 22:19:00
On 04/10/06, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
> I am seriously wanting to bang heads together...
I suspect everyone is feeling a fair amount of frustration. There
have been a few positive feedback loops, if I am not mistaken, and
when this is the case in human action, the results of our actions are
often the opposite of what we intend. A Chinese finger puzzle, of
sorts.
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3321
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
04/10/2006 22:14:00
On 04/10/06, George Jelliss <gpjnow@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
> The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is Reason
> implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
I agree that it is a mistake to say that Dawkins' argument is that
evolution implies atheism. Likewise, I believe it is wrong to compare
Dawkins' to the people at the DI. For one thing, he is a real
scientist. For another, he is a thinker of high calibre. For yet
another, he is a very good writer and a genuine pleasure to read.
However, I consider the view that reason implies atheism something
which isn't entirely obvious. In fact, it raises a number of
questions for me.
Do you have a well-articulated worldview which defines "reason" and
its role in human existence? Does your view provide well-articulated
ethical guidance in the various aspects of human life? Is this view
of yours empirical, and if it is empirical, is it testable? If not,
would it at least be non-controversial among those who accept your
reasoned views regarding religion? Or if you simply regard it as a
matter of commonsense, how do you distinguish it from other claims
made in the name of commonsense?
I do not mean to argue that you do not have a reasonable viewpoint or
that you are unethical - far from it. But I believe it is possible
for reasonable people of good will to hold different views on such
matters and still find enough common ground to cooperate when
necessary, and I believe that, given what we currently face, it is
necessary, and as such we will need to learn how to set aside our
differences.
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3322
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 22:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Dawkins is 65 and a success and in it for the money. He's a great
> biologist. We are not great biologists.
What's that got to do with the price of fish? I'm 64 and not a
success, and only a bit of a biologist. Does that mean I should get my
head down and pray that the cretinist world-view is right?
I've hardly time for this discussion - I'm too busy reading "The God
Delusion", which is brilliant. Why should we pander to the deluded?
Brian
3323
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 22:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> 2. Do you want Claire Enders involved? (Answer, start living in the
> real world!)
>
Never heard of her until now. She seems to be married to the publisher
of Desperate Dan. What's so dire about that? Is she such a terrible minx?
Brian
who wonders whether he's dreaming...
3324
JAF
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 22:45:00
This isn't a reply to anyone, just a convenient point to jump in.
Let's not argue about whether Dawkins is God (apologies to Eric Clapton), or
whether religious believers, of whatever stripe, are right or wrong.
We are 'here' to fight the insidious infiltration of creationism and
creationists into British schools, and to support Real (as averse to
pseudo-) Science. Anyone who supports that end should be welcomed. Let's
get on with the matter in hand, and worry about other issues on other
places.
I for one would hate to see this thing fall apart, so soon.
Thank you for your attention.
Zl jbex urer vf qbar.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/
3325
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 22:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> 1. Has Dawkins backed us? (answer No!)
"nobody asked me, sir he said" to paraphrase the nursery rhyme.
Have we ever raised our head that far above the parapet? IIRC there
was a suggestion that we ask Dawkins to sponsor us, but I don't recall
anything coming of it.
> We have to do what we are doing without him. He is irrelevant to
> what we are trying to do.
I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise, apart from the above. But
group members are still entitled to say that he's a Good Man and
promulgate his arguments. I can't understand what you're on about,
Roger. Perhaps you should re-read recent postings with your Landover
Baptist collar on. Then tell us we're extreme.
There, I've said it. Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous.
Brian
who can't understand how we've got into this mess.
3326
freefromchrist
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 23:41:00
> 1. Has Dawkins backed us? (answer No!)
You didn't ask, but I doubt he would. Of course, that's largely
because he has been eviscerated as "too atheist" whenever his name is
mentioned.
> Dawkins is 65 and a success and in it for the money.
Roger, what has galled me to the point of walking away in disgust, and
continues to frustrate me even when I am trying to simply help from
the wings is this dual standard.
"Rowan Williams does not care about comabting extremists, he just
wants to maintain the Church of England's grip on education in
England. He's in it for the political power."
Is this a helpful statement? It's the truth as I see it, but does it
help us here? Of course not. This would be viewed as unhelpful and
possibly offensive by christians.
*BUT* This continued bashing of Richard Dawkins is precisely the same
thing. You are taking one of the leading lights of modern Atheism, and
dismissing him as "just in it for the money". It's offensive, and
unhelpful.
It has been repeated over and over again - this is not a forum for
bashing religion. At the moment, you are not making it clear that it
is not a forum for bashing atheism either.
Respect is not a one way street. If I am being asked to respect
someone who believes something completely contrary to my worldview,
then they should show me the same courtesy.
It's not rocket science, and it's not asking for the moon on a stick.
As Lenny keeps saying - "don't fight your allies". If that is to mean
anything, it has to apply to both camps equally.
3327
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
04/10/2006 23:52:00
freefromchrist wrote:
> As Lenny keeps saying - "don't fight your allies". If that is to mean
> anything, it has to apply to both camps equally.
Damn bloody right.
3328
Lenny Flank
We are the world, we are the children . . . . .
05/10/2006 01:23:00
I post this every once in a while over at Debunk. Looks like we
could use it here, too:
Many of us have been there on the list for several years and are
"cyber-friends", and we always are ready to welcome new cyber-
friends. We are a very wide-ranging bunch. Geographically, we have
list members from the US, UK, Canada, Sweden, South Africa,
Australia, and probably elsewhere. Politically, we range from
Republican to British Tory to Labour Party-ite to "yellow-dog
Democrat" to Libertarian to "anarcho-syndicalist"(whatever the heck
THAT means) ;> . Religiously, we range from atheist to agnostic to
Christian (from several different denominations, including a couple
of ordained priests/ministers) to Jewish to Taoist/Buddhist. Mostly,
we all get along. Mostly.
:>
Some of us here indeed are atheists or agnostics. Some of us, on the
other hand, are ordained ministers of one sort or another. Some of
us are conservatives, some of us are moderates, some of us are
liberals, some of us are commies. Name a religious, social or
political group, and there's *very likely* someone here from it.
Alas, the wide range in opinions that is found (and expressed) here
does inevitably mean that, yes indeed, *everyone here* will hear
beliefs and ideas that they disagree with, don't like, and may even
find absolutely utterly horrifyingly abhorent, distasteful,
loathsome, blah blah blah. I can *absolutely guarantee* it.
Consider it a lesson in how to get along with people who are
different than you are. (shrug)
What we ALL have in common, though, is that we firmly conclude (1)
ID/creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in a science
classroom, and (2) the separation of church and state MUST be upheld
and protected against fundamentalist efforts to impose theocracy onto
us.
ALL of us here, whether Democan, Republicrat, liberal, conservative,
radical; atheist, theist, don'tgiveadamnist; straight, gay, both;
male, female, both; black, white, Asian, Latin; Christian, Buddhist,
Jewish; tastes great, less filling, or WHATEVER, oppose the efforts
of the creationists/IDers and the Religious Right that holds their
leashes. So remember that, despite all our differences, we are all on
the same side here.
Anyone who agrees with that, is on our side. Anyone who disagrees,
ain't. We're here to fight the ones who ain't. Not the ones who
are.
<sounds of "We Are the World" in background>
"Can't we all . . . just get along?"
--Rodney King
As for those who simply *cannot* tolerate those who are different
than they are . . . well . . . I don't think people like that will
last very long here.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3329
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 01:20:00
but how
> do you not respond?
By not responding.
Are we going to allow these criticisms to go
> unchallenged?
Yes.
Better still, unmade. From BOTH sides.
Are we really going to allow what sounds like nothing
> more than creationist propaganda to be accepted as the norm on this
> forum?
>
There is rather a difference between "creationists" and "theists".
One is on our side. One isn't.
Fight the one that isn't. Not the one that is. Fighting the one
that is on our side, is . . . well . . . awfully stupid.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3330
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 01:25:00
> As Lenny keeps saying - "don't fight your allies". If that is to mean
> anything, it has to apply to both camps equally.
>
Amen, brother.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3331
Roger Stanyard
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 10:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> > 1. Has Dawkins backed us? (answer No!)
>
> You didn't ask, but I doubt he would. Of course, that's largely
> because he has been eviscerated as "too atheist" whenever his name
is
> mentioned.
>
> > Dawkins is 65 and a success and in it for the money.
>
OK, Ian, I may have overstated the case here. Apologies.
> "Rowan Williams does not care about comabting extremists, he just
> wants to maintain the Church of England's grip on education in
> England. He's in it for the political power."
>
> Is this a helpful statement? It's the truth as I see it, but does it
> help us here? Of course not. This would be viewed as unhelpful and
> possibly offensive by christians.
The problem as I see it is actually the same for the CofE as Dawkins.
Neither is giving much support to the anti-creationist movement.
I may be wrong, but the only support I have ever seen Dawkins give to
an anti-creationist grooup (and there are loads of them in the USA)
is a single email years back to Lenny Flank.
My feeling is that Dawkins is now getting towards the end of his
working career and is concentrating on what is now his personal core
mission.
I guess Claire Enders has been brought in to manage his intellectual
property rights. She is good at that (she helped create EMI in its
current form). Dawkins undoubtedly is sitting on several million
pounds worth of intellectual property rights.
But I don't see Claire as an ally at all. As a consequence I can't
see us getting any support from Dawkins.
My heart and intuition say that the rich and powerfull look after
themselfs and they ain't gonna help us.
I may stand corrected
Roger
> *BUT* This continued bashing of Richard Dawkins is precisely the
same
> thing. You are taking one of the leading lights of modern Atheism,
and
> dismissing him as "just in it for the money". It's offensive, and
> unhelpful.
>
> It has been repeated over and over again - this is not a forum for
> bashing religion. At the moment, you are not making it clear that it
> is not a forum for bashing atheism either.
>
> Respect is not a one way street. If I am being asked to respect
> someone who believes something completely contrary to my worldview,
> then they should show me the same courtesy.
>
> It's not rocket science, and it's not asking for the moon on a
stick.
>
> As Lenny keeps saying - "don't fight your allies". If that is to
mean
> anything, it has to apply to both camps equally.
>
Agreed.
3332
Roger Stanyard
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 10:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins is 65 and a success and in it for the money. He's a great
> > biologist. We are not great biologists.
> What's that got to do with the price of fish? I'm 64 and not a
> success, and only a bit of a biologist. Does that mean I should get my
> head down and pray that the cretinist world-view is right?
>
> I've hardly time for this discussion - I'm too busy reading "The God
> Delusion", which is brilliant. Why should we pander to the deluded?
>
> Brian
I think you missed part of my point Brian.
What worries me is that Dawkins is no longer backing science.
Roger
3333
Roger Stanyard
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 10:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > 2. Do you want Claire Enders involved? (Answer, start living in the
> > real world!)
> >
> Never heard of her until now. She seems to be married to the publisher
> of Desperate Dan. What's so dire about that? Is she such a terrible
minx?
You said it on the last point Brian! It's spot on.
Dig around the broadcasting industry a bit and you will find some
colourful stories.
Roger
3334
George Jelliss
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 10:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
> > The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is
> Reason implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
>
> I couldn't agree more but he doesn't give a stuff about us. Do you
> really think any of us are ever going to ge a message in our in box
> from him?
>
> Why do you think Claire Enders is backing him?
>
Roger, I don't understand this personal antipathy you seem to have for
Richard Dawkins. And who is Claire Enders?
I've been posting some items (as "jeepyjay") on the Forum associated
with the new RD Foundation. So far I have found the people there very
receptive to news about creationist antics. The people who sign up
there are likely to be people who are knowledgeable about the
intricacies of evolution, because that is Dawkins' expertise. Some of
them may come here, or to the BCSE site, to see what we are doing. If
they find the editor of the site is rabidly anti-Dawkins they will no
doubt be off straight away. These are the sort of people we need to
engage in the fight against creationism. They are in fact in my
opinion more important to have on our side than the Church of England,
though of course it would help to have them as well.
3335
jon_12091
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 10:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jon_12091" <jon_12091@>
> wrote:
> >
> > As for Dawkins, his Chair is in the public understanding of
> > science,
> > for the last few years at least I have heard nothing from him in
> > the
> > media on that subject and seems only to turn up when he's punting
> > his
> > latest book. In many ways behaviour not too dissemler to that of
> > the "fellows" of the DI churning out pulp for their fan base....
> > I'd
> > go as far as to say David Attenbourgh probably achieves more to
> > close
> > out the 'wedge' in this country with an hours voiceover than
> > Dawkins
> > has ever achieved....
> >
> > Evolution = Aetheism is a meaningless pejorative regardless of
> > which side of the debate says it.
> > ///
>
>
> I really can't let you get away with this denigration of Dawkins.
> The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is
Reason
> implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
>
Well, reason & religion are hardly mutally exclusive though perhaps
that ought to be "should not be mutally exclusive". My critisim of
Dawkins is informed purely by his media presence, however you might
think given his media platform he might consider addressing some of
the real issues facing science & technology in the UK such as poor
public understanding and collasping graduate numbers. If this
countries science & technology base goes any further to the dogs it
won't such be the theist fundamentalists sitting in the dark.....
3336
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 10:34:00
On 04 oct 2006, at 23:44, oeditor wrote:
> Brian
> who can't understand how we've got into this mess.
I think you identified the answer in a post you submitted 15 minutes
earlier: by pandering to the deluded.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3337
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 10:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I may be wrong, but the only support I have ever seen Dawkins give
to > an anti-creationist grooup (and there are loads of them in the
>USA) is a single email years back to Lenny Flank.
>
I think you *are* wrong, Roger. He may not have given his personal
support to any particular group but how about this:
He's just unleashed upon the world a best-selling book in which (I'm
skipping ahead to bits I haven't read through) he:
1. Demolishes the "wind-built" 747 statistical argument
2. Demolishes "irriducible complexity"
3. Tears, over 6 pages, into the ESF's creationists, naming names and
quoting quotes, under the heading "An Educational Scandal".
A stirling service to anti-creationism, I'd say.
Brian
3338
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 11:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I think you missed part of my point Brian.
>
> What worries me is that Dawkins is no longer backing science.
>
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that his new book is
written for the USA. A country where the science establishment is
screaming because it's losing its pre-eminence in the world due to the
attacks on science from the cretinists in particular and the religious
in general. So he writes a book attacking religion in general, with
part of it attacking cretinism in particular. I see that as backing
science.
Brian
3339
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 13:00:00
>
>
> I think you identified the answer in a post you submitted 15 minutes
> earlier: by pandering to the deluded.
You need the support of those, uh, "deluded".
You will not win without it.
If you turn this into a "science vs religion" fight, the creationists
will mop the floor with you.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3340
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 13:13:00
Let's just assume,
> for the sake of argument, that his new book is written for the USA. A
> country where the science establishment is screaming because it's
> losing its pre-eminence in the world due to the attacks on science
> from the cretinists in particular and the religious in general.
"The religious in general" are not attacking science. Indeed, most
scientists in the US are part of that "religious in general". All of
the plaintiffs in Dover who killed ID are part of the "religious in
general". The founder and president of People for the American Way
(one of the groups that provided the lawyers in Dover) are also part
of the "religious in general".
Science is under attack by a specific, tiny (but very politically
influential) subset of "the religious in general". The enemy of
science is fundamentalism, not "religion in general".
There is a big difference.
Attacking "fundamentalism", helps us. Attacking "religion in
general", does not.
So he
> writes a book attacking religion in general, with part of it attacking
> cretinism in particular. I see that as backing science.
But not very helpfully.
In the US, at least, atheists make up at the very most 15% of the
population, and probably more like 10%. Since the US is split about
50-50 between creationist-supporters and evolution-supporters, that
means that at least 66%, and probably as high as 80%, of the people
in the US who oppose creationism and support evolution, are theists.
There likely is a higher percentage of atheists in the UK (though I'd
be very surprised if it were a majority, since if atheists were so
powerful and so pervasive, there'd be no creationist problem there in
the first place). Regardless, you still need the political support
of anti-creationist theists. Whether you like them or not. And
screaming "religion is stupid!!!!!" at them is, uh, not a very
effective way to win their support.
Like it or not, we need the support of the anti-creationist theists.
It's a simple matter of numbers.
I cannot for the life of me see what good it does for us to attack
them instead.
You have a choice. You can remain ideologically pure and continue to
scream "religion is stupid!!!" at everyone. And the creationists
will run rampant, without any effective opposition because we can't
get our act together.
Or, you can form coalitions with people who oppose the creationists
(including people you don't like), and form an effective opposition
to beat them.
Me, I'd much rather beat the fundies than remain ideologically
unsullied.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
3341
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com>
Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 13:13:00
Now I really am just thinking aloud now but I think the last couple of days
ranting has proved a couple of things.
* Atheists, secularists and so on really can't get along with bible-punching
Christians no matter how hard we try. We can however, I expect, get along with
those people who call themselves Christian yet in reality are just following a
group. These people are a big majority. This is NOT the case in the USA.
* Lenny Flank has a group which does cater for the deeply religious called
Debunk Creation which I suspect most people here are well aware of.
I respect Lenny enormously, his writing and research on this subject are second
to none. However, this is a UK group and our faith landscape is rather less
polarised than in the US. Religion means little if anything to average, everyday
folk.
Can I respectfully suggest (thinking aloud again) that we divert the deeply
religious (particularly Christians) to Lenny's group while concentrating this
one on everyone else.
I fear that if we don't, we'll be in a constant state of bickering every time
someone with a strong opinion like me, Rudy, George (I think) and a few others
offers up some off-the-cuff remark, it'll be blown out of context. This is
counterproductive.
Broadly speaking, there are three groups in the UK: the left (people like me),
the right (people like Dubya and Bliar) and the middle, average people who live
in my street and those like them. This middle ground is VAST. The read the red
tops and turn off "Songs of Praise" when it comes on.
Most people in my area say they are Christian but have no real feeling either
way: until you explain what Vardy and his cohorts are doing.
Then they get really, really angry!
These are the people we need. Real, practicing Christian folks are just too
sensitive: rather like many muslims are about their prophet. (I wonder if anyone
else heard Beyond Belief this week - with the muslim woman being quite
reasonable and educate, with the muslim man being like a rabid nutter.) That
woman would find solace here.
Is Dawkins in it for the money? Of course he is, but the message remains the
same. Perhaps his books do promote he seat at Oxford. Certainly, they are a
joyous read. His TV documentary was similarly scathing, but it was open and
honest: and in spite of the complaints, it came out on top as I recall.
What about Carl Sagan? His (last?) book "Demon Haunted World" holds equally
stark warnings yet it was written many years ago. People clearly didn't listen
and now look where we are.
We don't need to bicker, but since this group is largely made of non-religious
or non-Christians (I think), I vote we keep it that way and aim for the
*everyday* folk because the instant someone starts quoting bibles (or defending
those that do) then these people will leave. The Rev. Roberts would do far more
good at Debunk Creation and he'd feel more welcome too.
Just my 2c.
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
3342
Roger Stanyard
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 13:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I really can't let you get away with this denigration of
Dawkins.
> > > The argument isn't Evolution implies Atheism. The argument is
> > Reason implies Atheism. Evolution is only part of the argument.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more but he doesn't give a stuff about us. Do
you
> > really think any of us are ever going to ge a message in our in
box
> > from him?
> >
> > Why do you think Claire Enders is backing him?
> >
>
> Roger, I don't understand this personal antipathy you seem to have
for
> Richard Dawkins. And who is Claire Enders?
>
> I've been posting some items (as "jeepyjay") on the Forum
associated
> with the new RD Foundation. So far I have found the people there
very
> receptive to news about creationist antics. The people who sign up
> there are likely to be people who are knowledgeable about the
> intricacies of evolution, because that is Dawkins' expertise. Some
of
> them may come here, or to the BCSE site, to see what we are doing.
If
> they find the editor of the site is rabidly anti-Dawkins they will
no
> doubt be off straight away. These are the sort of people we need to
> engage in the fight against creationism. They are in fact in my
> opinion more important to have on our side than the Church of
England,
> though of course it would help to have them as well.
I largely with you. My point is that we cannot rely on Richard
Dawkins.
I am not rabidly anti-Dawkins or pro-religious. (My private position
is the opposite of both.)
However, my public position is that I am neither for or against
religion and nor for or against atheism. What I am for is science and
what I am against is creationism.
>
3343
freefromchrist
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 13:51:00
Lenny, there are two key things different between the UK and the US in
this regards, and it might help to explain why this stuff keeps coming
up in the way it does.
1) America has seperation of Church and State in the constitution.
We do not - we have the Church of England legally written into the
operation of government (they have bishops in our upper house of
parliament), and a huge number of people in the country have no choice
in education - their children have to go to a Church of England run
and owned school with *enforced worship*.
You can assume that your allies of many colours generally support the
seperation of church and state - we can't make that assumption, as
many of the CoE people we are dealing with want to maintain a
political position of power and undue influence.
2) America has a small atheist population, and most people believe in
a god. We don't.
The actual atheist population (from the last census) is around 28%
(Scotland is around 39%), and the number of people who believe in a
God is overall about 60% of the population. Amongst young people that
drops to less than 40%
The number of people who attend a church service regularly... less
than 11% of the population.
It's a very different position, and leads to different politics. The
whole religion vs science debate is not the problem. The POLITICS are
the problem.
In the UK, the Church of England is desperately trying to hold onto
political power, as attendance drops and churches fall into disrepair
- it is no representative politically, and the CoE uses it's influence
*constantly* to maintain it's own legal position.
Incidentally, if you live in certain areas, the church can impose a
tax on you to maintain the local church and minister's home.
It is *very* hard for us (secular atheists) to see the Church of
England as allies because they have been in a political position to do
something about creationism for a long, long time and have done
practically nothing.
If the CoE dropped the requirement for children to pray to their God
in state schools every morning (which they are legally entitled to do,
whether the parents wish it or not), it would be easier to see them as
allies.
Even so, some of us have sucked it up and agreed not to get into spats
with the moderate christians... except one of them came in here, had a
pop at Richard Dawkins and moaned about "atheistic darwinism".
He sure as hell didn't sound like an ally to me!!
I.
3344
Roger Stanyard
Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 14:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, <midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Now I really am just thinking aloud now but I think the last couple
of days ranting has proved a couple of things.
>
> * Atheists, secularists and so on really can't get along with bible-
punching Christians no matter how hard we try. We can however, I
expect, get along with those people who call themselves Christian yet
in reality are just following a group. These people are a big
majority. This is NOT the case in the USA.
>
> * Lenny Flank has a group which does cater for the deeply religious
called Debunk Creation which I suspect most people here are well
aware of.
>
> I respect Lenny enormously, his writing and research on this
subject are second to none. However, this is a UK group and our faith
landscape is rather less polarised than in the US. Religion means
little if anything to average, everyday folk.
>
> Can I respectfully suggest (thinking aloud again) that we divert
the deeply religious (particularly Christians) to Lenny's group while
concentrating this one on everyone else.
What the hell is the point of doing that! We need all the support we
can get. Diversting them to Lenny's site is the opposite of what we
want. Blackshadow is not about debunking creationism. It's about
putting together an effective movement to stop the teaching of
creationism in science lessons.
> I fear that if we don't, we'll be in a constant state of bickering
every time someone with a strong opinion like me, Rudy, George (I
think) and a few others offers up some off-the-cuff remark, it'll be
blown out of context. This is counterproductive.
>
> Broadly speaking, there are three groups in the UK: the left
(people like me), the right (people like Dubya and Bliar) and the
middle, average people who live in my street and those like them.
This middle ground is VAST. The read the red tops and turn off "Songs
of Praise" when it comes on.
Nope. The professional and managerial classes are basically leftish
and liberal and the Blackshadow group is basically made up of people
of that persuasion.
We don't have the resources or the remit to address the public at
large. All we have is the resources needed to inform (and, with lick,
pursuade) decision takers and people of infleunce.
>
> Most people in my area say they are Christian but have no real
feeling either way: until you explain what Vardy and his cohorts are
doing.
>
> Then they get really, really angry!
>
> These are the people we need. Real, practicing Christian folks are
just too sensitive: rather like many muslims are about their prophet.
(I wonder if anyone else heard Beyond Belief this week - with the
muslim woman being quite reasonable and educate, with the muslim man
being like a rabid nutter.) That woman would find solace here.
>
> Is Dawkins in it for the money? Of course he is, but the message
remains the same. Perhaps his books do promote he seat at Oxford.
Certainly, they are a joyous read. His TV documentary was similarly
scathing, but it was open and honest: and in spite of the complaints,
it came out on top as I recall.
>
> What about Carl Sagan? His (last?) book "Demon Haunted World" holds
equally stark warnings yet it was written many years ago. People
clearly didn't listen and now look where we are.
>
> We don't need to bicker, but since this group is largely made of
non-religious or non-Christians (I think), I vote we keep it that way
and aim for the *everyday* folk because the instant someone starts
quoting bibles (or defending those that do) then these people will
leave. The Rev. Roberts would do far more good at Debunk Creation and
he'd feel more welcome too.
I doubt whether he would do more good at Debunk Creation. Whatever
you may think we lost a good potential ally when he left. How the
hell do you think we got in the national press this week? Why do you
think the BHA teamed up with Ekklesia?
Roberts was no fundamentalist extremist.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
3345
freefromchrist
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 14:08:00
Short, clearer version -
as you ave said many times Lenny, this is a political fight.
The problem is, I could post an entire article on why the CoE are not
on the same side as us, without mentioning religion once.
*individual* CoE clergy are secularists, who want to see their church
just be a church, rather than an arm of government, but their
leadership do not share that view.
I.
3346
oeditor
Just a thought...
05/10/2006 14:16:00
It seems to me that much of the Dawkins argument - and similar ones
which crop up regularly - would quietly disappear if we all were to
follow one rule: Stay On Topic.
It might also help if we move to a properly threaded system, so such
diverting (pun intended) little spats could be kept in their own places.
Brian
3347
Timothy Chase
Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 15:17:00
On 05/10/06, midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
<midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Now I really am just thinking aloud now but I think the last couple of days
ranting has proved a couple of things.
>
> * Atheists, secularists and so on really can't get along with bible-punching
Christians no matter how hard we try. We can however, I expect, get along with
those people who call themselves Christian yet in reality are just following a
group. These people are a big majority. This is NOT the case in the USA.
I agree with you that if Christians come in here, then they need the
good sense to avoid citing the Bible, repeatedly, particular once it
is made clear to them that this offends many of our members. I will
also add that it is also more than a matter of good sense: it is good
taste and good manners, at least when in the company of those who do
not share their beliefs.
At the same time, I believe that having the more religious among us
helps, and in fact, it helps a great deal. For one thing, they have
organisations which they may be able to swing over to our side.
Barring that, they have networks and may be able to bring others in or
create organisations which will find it much easier to get even the
more nominal religious to listen to us where it matters most.
> * Lenny Flank has a group which does cater for the deeply religious called
Debunk Creation which I suspect most people here are well aware of.
Actually, Lenny's group doesn't cater to the religious. I don't know
if you have noticed, but for the most part, each time someone brings
up religion, either pro or con, he tells them to quit it.
Occasionally he will let things go for a bit, hoping that people who
disagree will recognise the futility of such arguing, give up, then be
a little wiser. But that is more the exception.
> I respect Lenny enormously, his writing and research on this subject are
second to none. However, this is a UK group and our faith landscape is rather
less polarised than in the US. Religion means little if anything to average,
everyday folk.
Perhaps it is less polarised. Sometimes I also hear that it is more
polarised - since everyone is secular except for those small, extreme
religious groups which are trying to take over the UK. But even among
the more nominally Christian, people are much more likely to listen to
this organisation if it is not perceived as being hostile to their
religious beliefs.
> Can I respectfully suggest (thinking aloud again) that we divert the deeply
religious (particularly Christians) to Lenny's group while concentrating this
one on everyone else.
The BCSE is a British organisation. Debunk Creation is a place which
exists primarily for debate - not for organising British resistance to
Fundamentalists who are having a good time of making inroads into the
educational system of Britain. If the BCSE is to be work as an
umbrella, will have to bring together people from different parts of
the political spectrum and with different views, both pro and con - on
religion.
Moreover, the greatest weapon the Fundamentalists have on their side
is the view that there is a stark dichotomy, that either you are
religious and therefore on their side - standing up for the "proper
moral training" of children, or you are ideologically opposed to all
religion and wish to see it erased off the face of the earth. With
members who are clearly religious and even willing to speak of their
religious beliefs in public, we rob them of that weapon - and we will
get far more people to listen to us. Even the nominally religious.
But if we do nothing in this regard, then we are simply leaving it to
them to paint us in such terms, to create the appearance that what we
are promoting is some atheistic ideology - and what we actually
promote will go over about as well as Protestantism among Catholics.
> I fear that if we don't, we'll be in a constant state of bickering every time
someone with a strong opinion like me, Rudy, George (I think) and a few others
offers up some off-the-cuff remark, it'll be blown out of context. This is
counterproductive.
It helps if we avoid the off-the-cuff remarks, in much the same way
that we expect even ministers to avoid their off-the-cuff remarks.
At the same time, if someone particularly comes in here because they
are primarily concerned with the embarrassment they feel with having
creationism associated with their churches, and ultimately with how
some people might look down on them for their religious beliefs, then
I think they need to rethink things. Creationism is a far more grave
threat than this. We are talking about having the schools turned into
Fundamentalist madrases - and if this is seen as nothing more than
"proper moral training" even by the more nominal Christians, then we
are in serious trouble.
> Broadly speaking, there are three groups in the UK: the left (people like me),
the right (people like Dubya and Bliar) and the middle, average people who live
in my street and those like them. This middle ground is VAST. The read the red
tops and turn off "Songs of Praise" when it comes on.
>
> Most people in my area say they are Christian but have no real feeling either
way: until you explain what Vardy and his cohorts are doing.
>
> Then they get really, really angry!
First you need to get them to listen.
> These are the people we need. Real, practicing Christian folks are just too
sensitive: rather like many muslims are about their prophet. (I wonder if anyone
else heard Beyond Belief this week - with the muslim woman being quite
reasonable and educate, with the muslim man being like a rabid nutter.) That
woman would find solace here.
It seems to me that there are sensitivities on all sides. I believe
it comes with being human.
> Is Dawkins in it for the money? Of course he is, but the message remains the
same. Perhaps his books do promote he seat at Oxford. Certainly, they are a
joyous read. His TV documentary was similarly scathing, but it was open and
honest: and in spite of the complaints, it came out on top as I recall.
It depends - what are they bringing away from it.
> What about Carl Sagan? His (last?) book "Demon Haunted World" holds equally
stark warnings yet it was written many years ago. People clearly didn't listen
and now look where we are.
Michael Shermer (the editor of Skeptic Magazine) argues against
religion - he simply doesn't do so within the context of this
conflict. He keeps the two separate, and I believe this is smart on
his part. I have absolutely no problem with arguing religion, pro or
con.
People will advocate their views, but within mixed company were there
exists a diversity of opinion and the urgent need to work together, it
is best if they set aside their differences. Sometimes this will be
difficult. Sometimes people will need to work on it. But it is the
approach which is only proper.
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3348
freefromchrist
Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 15:47:00
There's another possibility.
in here, everything is one big chuck bucket. there's one set of rules.
if we implement the forum system we are talking about just now,
there's the possibility of a couple of different more general
discussion areas...
keep the political stuff in a pristine forum, with anything off topic
being moved to a discussion area, and perhaps have two areas - one
that is religion friendly where scripture etc is allowed (and atheist
heckling is not), precisely to encourage inter-nicine discussion
between christians of differing views... and one that is not religion
friendly where, conversely, preaching/biblical discussion is not allowed.
It's a lot easier to moderate behaviour, if the resopnse is not "you
can't say that", but rather, "go *here* if you want to say that"
worth considering.
3349
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 16:59:00
On 05/10/06, freefromchrist <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's another possibility.
>
> in here, everything is one big chuck bucket. there's one set of rules.
> if we implement the forum system we are talking about just now,
> there's the possibility of a couple of different more general
> discussion areas...
Exactly.
> keep the political stuff in a pristine forum, with anything off topic
> being moved to a discussion area, and perhaps have two areas - one
> that is religion friendly where scripture etc is allowed (and atheist
> heckling is not), precisely to encourage inter-nicine discussion
> between christians of differing views... and one that is not religion
> friendly where, conversely, preaching/biblical discussion is not allowed.
Agreed. As long as we keep the pro and the con both out. And if
there is con, I believe there are already lists devoted specifically
to this which everyone is quite familiar with.
> It's a lot easier to moderate behaviour, if the resopnse is not "you
> can't say that", but rather, "go *here* if you want to say that"
>
> worth considering.
Agreed. This is really something which should be given serious
consideration. The only problem for me is that I would have three
lists to subscribe to rather than just one. Oh well. In life, one
must learn to put up with certain inconveniences.
3350
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 17:13:00
I'm all for that. That way we keep everything separate. I've been for
that since the very start. A mail list really isn't the place to do
this; a forum is.
I don't agree with Roger (and Roger, you have my full respect and
support otherwise) that we lost an ally. As someone mentioned in a
private mail, one has to wonder on the reasons we're all here. For me
it's to get Vardy and his mates out of education and government. I got a
horrible feeling that the only thing that Michael Roberts wanted was to
stop the teaching of creationism specifically as (or in) science. I
wonder how far he would go otherwise.
In just a couple of posts, he entered a largely secular (or religiously
free forum ) started quoting from the bible and making ignorant remarks
which surely belie someone of his presumed intellect. If there's one
thing that's sure to piss me off, it's preaching. Let's not forget it
was him who started the arguments in the first place and it was him who
ran away like a spoilt child. He wouldn't even validate his own opinions
for pete's sake. When I made "that" post, I was 100% absolutely clear
that the view was from a secular perspective.
I wonder how much we can allow for preaching... too much and you begin
to blur the line between political agendas, religious posturing and
fanaticism. However, I fully support (and would help to pay for and help
to moderate) a board like the ones already in place at NTA, Reefland and
countless others that keep arguments pigeon-holed where they belong.
We do need to get normal people to listen as I think Tim mentioned, but
the only way to do that is to get out there and do something. The
binverts fell through due to bad timing (the carpet company are still
blanketing the area) but I've got some money here to throw in a pot to
do something else. We need to advertise!!! We need to get on the TV. We
need to get support in the red-tops. Positive action will do that.
Hell's teeth, if I didn't have to keep my head down (as does Stefan
these days) so much I WOULD chain myself to the rails of King's Academy
and make the bastards sit up and listen.
As for religion in schools, I am 100% against it in assembly. It's been
forced upon us by the CofE and it's not needed. That's what churches are
for. However, I would keep religious study but make it a critical
lesson; a science in fact where we examine belief and try to understand
it. Not just accept it blindly. Somehow I rather doubt Ekklesia would go
for that. Science teaches us to think critically and it's that that's
the enemy of faith because once you examine it, the fantasy evaporates.
So many other non-theistic faiths (if we call them that) exist yet don't
usually receive much attention in class. The only reason people tolerate
religion in school is because it purveys a sense of right and wrong, and
it's seen as "harmless". As a school governor that's what I learnt from
other parents. Almost none, NONE, were aware of what Vardy's real
intentions are. Vardy schools don't just teach creation, they are
completely anti-science and anti-thought.
Now I have to join another school board for the same reason. It's been
infiltrated by a bible-punching creationist: and within weeks my
comfortable secular school was running amok with Gideons! He's going to
find me a considerable force to deal with if I am elected.
I don't know how much influence Ekklesia has, they claim a lot probably
because on the face of it they are of a very modern view. We got into
the Times for a number of reasons, not least of which is Roger's ability
to write a bloody good letter! Credit where it's due. With my contacts
I've already contributed to two television documentaries and a number of
newspaper articles, and I expect others here have too, so where's the
loss? In spite of Michael's reaction to the Cohen piece he didn't offer
up a single word of wisdom as to it's inaccuracies. If the religious are
going to come here, then they had better be prepared to debate properly
and not be so bloody sensitive. Ironic really, the very people who
purport to turn the other cheek and respect others are the first to run
away crying when they get hurt. Hardly a good example to set...
freefromchrist wrote:
>
>
> There's another possibility.
>
> in here, everything is one big chuck bucket. there's one set of rules.
>
> if we implement the forum system we are talking about just now,
> there's the possibility of a couple of different more general
> discussion areas...
>
> keep the political stuff in a pristine forum, with anything off topic
> being moved to a discussion area, and perhaps have two areas - one
> that is religion friendly where scripture etc is allowed (and atheist
> heckling is not), precisely to encourage inter-nicine discussion
> between christians of differing views... and one that is not religion
> friendly where, conversely, preaching/biblical discussion is not allowed.
>
> It's a lot easier to moderate behaviour, if the resopnse is not "you
> can't say that", but rather, "go *here* if you want to say that"
>
> worth considering.
>
>