3351
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 18:11:00
oeditor wrote:
> --- 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.
The attacks on science in America are coming from creationists and not
"the religious in general" as well. The attacks are religiously
motivated by people basically wanting to impose a Taliban-like state.
These same people are playing on the fears of others by trying to say
that if they are Christian then they have to accept creationism because
evolution attacks religion.
So a book attacking religion plays into those hands.
At the same time, the self-same book attacks creationism and details the
strength of evolutionary theory.
Dawkins is, of course, entitled to his views. Do I feel that all of his
views should be brought to bear in this particular arena fighting
creationism? No.
I personally prefer the approach of pointing out that regardless of
anyone's PERSONAL OPINION, many people and mainstream institutions do
not see an incompatibility between religion and evolution.
3352
Mikey Brass
Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 18:11:00
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com wrote:
> 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!
Precisely!
> These are the people we need. Real, practicing Christian folks are just too
sensitive:
I do not agree with the latter statement at all. We need *everyone* who
opposes creationism being taught in science classrooms.
3353
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 18:11:00
freefromchrist wrote:
> 1) America has seperation of Church and State in the constitution.
Something I wish the UK had.
> The POLITICS are the problem.
Yup. But all that is surely a discussion for another time and place; it
is not this particular fight.
> 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.
It's about time I mentioned something. In either 2001 or 2002 I
presented at the European skeptics conference in London (if anyone is
interested, my ppt is at
http://www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html). Someone else spoke
after me on the then state of creationism within the CoE. He had spoken
to many clergy off the record and found that, internally, the CoE is in
a state of, well, war. There is a large minority of right-wing
sympathising clergy who interpret Genesis literally and they are waging
a war to make this the official position.
Regardless of the CoE's stance on prayers, much of their energy is being
exhausted on basically containing its own civil war.
Something else which has not been raised to date: soon after the Vardy
school opened, Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford (they are actually
friends) issued a joint statement condemning creationism. Dr Richard
Harries has been on radio condemning.
> Even so, some of us have sucked it up and agreed not to get into spats
> with the moderate christians...
Which, imo, is correct.
> except one of them came in here, had a
> pop at Richard Dawkins and moaned about "atheistic darwinism".
The latter is totally out of order (by the person who said it).
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
3354
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 18:11:00
jon_12091 wrote:
> 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.
I attended a Darwin Day held by the British Humanist Association a
couple of years back. Dawkins was in the audience and spoke out during a
Q&A. He had developed biology curriculums for schools which were more
advanced than the guidelines set by the government. He has been trying
to get the government to listen but has been constantly rebuffed.
3355
Mikey Brass
Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 18:11:00
oeditor wrote:
> 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.
Hell yes.
> 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.
Hence the need for the website and message board.
If all the effort which has gone into this thread could have been
focused on a domain name and getting it all up and running, imagine how
far we would have got by now......????
3356
Dave Oldridge
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 18:25:00
On 4 Oct 2006 at 13:07, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass"
> <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ian is right in raising all the points he has and I am happy
> to see
> he and
> > I agree on the domain name. My preference for a European
> provider
> is based
> > on more rapid response, although most good providers are
> resiliant
> > anyways.
> > In that capacity, apart from you being a member, your offer of
> hosting is
> > very tempting to me indeed and I would recommend that Roger
> seriously
> > considers it.
> >
> > As an aside for the list, if anyone is wondering where my
> recommendations
> > are coming from, I am both an archaeologist and IT systems
> administrator.
> >
> 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.
> I have to say thta it is about six-seven years ago I last looked
> at
> that problem so I amy be talking out of the proverbial
> backside.
FWIW, when I used to live in NS, I was about a mile from the new
fiber cable end. The latency with UK servers was often better
than with US servers, especially west coast ones.
But then since moving here, I've run across Japanese servers that
can beat Microsoft!
Moral of the story, geography has no strong correlation with
network topography.
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3357
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 18:12:00
freefromchrist wrote:
> keep the political stuff in a pristine forum, with anything off topic
> being moved to a discussion area, and perhaps have two areas
A good idea which has my full support.
3358
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 18:40:00
On 05 oct 2006, at 14:00, Lenny Flank wrote:
> You need the support of those, uh, "deluded".
Lenny, like everybody on this (BlackShadow) and your (DebunkCreation)
list, I respect your views enormously. I am also grateful to you
personally, because between you, Jack Kilmon and MB you opened up the
wonderful world of snakes to me, just like reading "The Selfish Gene"
more than 20 years ago opened my eyes to biology in general. (Without
Dawkins, and TSG, I would hardly be participating in these groups.)
However, the above statement seems questionable to me. If I were a
General (what the heck, why not Field Marshal), I think I would want
the forces on my side to be convinced, not deluded. I would wonder
deeply about the level of commitment of not only the Michael Robertses
of this world, but many other apparently "inoffensive" theists, if the
fight demanded (intellectual) action that they might find hard to
reconcile with their extra-scientific views. I wonder what Sunzi would
have to say about this dilemma...
Personally, I believe appeasement is a recipe for disaster, but I am
willing to shut up about that in both groups. I welcome the suggestion
by Ian that those of us who have come to enjoy debating each other on
these more philosophical issues move our discussions elsewhere. Is
there already a group dedicated to such discussions where our two
memberships would feel comfortable? If not I am happy to start one. I
cannot agree with another suggestion made by somebody else that we have
*two* such meeting places: one where religious people are pampered to
and one where atheists and agnostics are pampered to. That is not
conducive to any interisting debate :-)
Rudy
(willing to shut up here, but not willing to cease arguing reason ->
atheism elsewhere)
3359
freefromchrist
Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 18:47:00
Well, I mailed the steps needed to get this all moving across to Roger
earlier on today.
We are basically waiting on a domain registration, and getting the
hosting set up. If we can get the payment bits out of the way, I can
get things set up either tonight or tomorrow.
just waiting on the registration...
Ian.
3360
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 18:43:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> 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.
If that happened in any school my child went to, hell would break loose.
> If the religious are
> going to come here, then they had better be prepared to debate properly
> and not be so bloody sensitive.
*puts my hand up*
3361
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 19:12:00
Rudy Vonk wrote:
> I would wonder deeply
> about the level of commitment
Ask Kenneth Miller about his level of commitment... Ask myself about my
level of commitment...
I agree with Lenny entirely.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
3362
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Thinking aloud
05/10/2006 19:14:00
freefromchrist wrote:
> We are basically waiting on a domain registration,
Brilliant. This is *much* more productive than most of the recent threads.
If you would like any assistance, feel free to mail me offlist.
3363
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
05/10/2006 20:34:00
On 05/10/06, Rudy Vonk <rudy@mores.es> wrote:
> On 05 oct 2006, at 14:00, Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > You need the support of those, uh, "deluded".
>
[cut simply for brevity]
> However, the above statement seems questionable to me. If I were a
> General (what the heck, why not Field Marshal), I think I would want
> the forces on my side to be convinced, not deluded. I would wonder
> deeply about the level of commitment of not only the Michael Robertses
> of this world, but many other apparently "inoffensive" theists, if the
> fight demanded (intellectual) action that they might find hard to
> reconcile with their extra-scientific views. I wonder what Sunzi would
> have to say about this dilemma...
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG
29. Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its
natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.
30. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike
at what is weak.
31. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the
ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in
relation to the foe whom he is facing.
32. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in
warfare there are no constant conditions.
33. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent
and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born captain.
Mikey Brass and Dave Oldridge are both strongly committed and have
been for quite some time, and I believe that we can rely upon them and
people like them to speak up when necessary - and those who are
religious are quite likely to listen to them, and even more likely to
listen to you on the points that matter most.
> Personally, I believe appeasement is a recipe for disaster, but I am
> willing to shut up about that in both groups. I welcome the suggestion
> by Ian that those of us who have come to enjoy debating each other on
> these more philosophical issues move our discussions elsewhere. Is
> there already a group dedicated to such discussions where our two
> memberships would feel comfortable? If not I am happy to start one. I
> cannot agree with another suggestion made by somebody else that we have
> *two* such meeting places: one where religious people are pampered to
> and one where atheists and agnostics are pampered to. That is not
> conducive to any interisting debate :-)
> Rudy
> (willing to shut up here, but not willing to cease arguing reason ->
> atheism elsewhere)
Assuming you do not regard speaking with people like Mikey about how
to stop the creationists "appeasement," I doubt that there will be any
problems. We won't be expecting any Hail Marys from you or anyone
else. As for debate, I think it is fine - elsewhere - but here we
should focus on tactics and organising.
Glad to have you onboard!
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3364
Marc Draco
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 21:31:00
>> 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?
Pardon me Lenny, but that's possibly the most asinine remark I've ever
seen you make.
Marxists? What the hell has that got to do with it. Arabs? Israelis? Ice
cream? NO. I expect the deluded to stay out of it or defend their
righteousness. If Michael Roberts comes here to preach and the more I
look at his limited contribution, that's exactly what he did, he was
mistaken. Perhaps he got the wrong idea. He started the discussion which
eventually led to him stomping off in a huff and the rest of us arguing
the whys and wherefores. That one member of the deluded class (to use
Rudy's verbiage) has done us more damage in days than any amount of
normal tit-for-tat.
Brits (at least, most of the ones I know) are not god-botherers. They
are far more likely to read and follow their stars than they are to ask
their bearded sky fairy for a favour. We are (as a nation)
superstitious. Derek Acorah has made a mint from it, but we're not
religious. Census data is wrong on this: look at the bums on church
seats: there you find the religious and there are less and less of them
every day.
Genesis is bullshit. Every stinking word of it is a badly written
fairytale. But as you well know, the anti-science lobby make big stinks
out of only selected bits. It follows that the remaining parts of the
bible cannot be interpreted literally either - you can't have it both
ways. Christianity let's be honest, is a new testament idea formed on
the OT tracts, and may or may not be more accurate. What, therefore,
makes Exodus (the next book in the OT) any more accurate? It isn't
anti-science, it's bad history which is nearly as bad.
Rank and file English people don't give a flying fig about the
Judao-Christian god or Jesus or anything of the sort. This is not the
same as it is in the USA from my reading. There it's considered normal
to believe in "that" god, the country was founded by devout believers
for the most part.
I think were missing the simple fact that there are three factions here,
not two. In the US I expect there really are just two (that count -
atheists there don't).
There are a small number of atheists, secularists, etc. and a small
number (less I expect and mostly elderly) true theists. Then there's the
rest of them. Forget the dumb census data - go out and ASK people. I
might be wrong, but in my experience when folks start hearing the
ranting of Stephen Green (to quote a typical example) or the blithering
Mormons or some other religious sect, they get truly pissed off. They
tolerate the CofE and the RC churches because they are part of a long
heritage. Who couldn't marvel at York Mister, for example? When Green
appeared on Question Time and started quoting from the Bible the room
erupted! It was frankly hilarious... had the same happened in the USA, I
expect the place would be hushed at his every word.
I don't honestly think that just because someone is anti-creationist
that automatically makes them an ally: I think it makes them a potential
one, sure! We have to be pragmatic about who we align ourselves with.
This may not be true in America, because the demographic is so
different. Over there, you guys can't run for the major parties unless
you profess to believe in that god. Here, several of our Primeministers
in my lifetime have been professed atheists (I suspect a large number of
the government is too)!
The sooner we can move this OUT of Yahoo and onto a proper board, the
better. Then maybe we can get back to actually organising: I for one am
champing at the bit to go and stand, flag waving outside the King's
Academy but if I do it alone, guess who will win! 10, 20, 30 or more
people or more WILL make a difference - one or two will look like idiots
and only strengthen their position.
Do you think a professional Christian like Michael Roberts would do
that? It's a school with a "Christian ethos" - which just happens to be
anti-gay, anti-Potter, anti-human rights, anti-science etc... do the
maths! Do you honestly think Michael could protest against them? Where
would he draw the line? I'm happy to let Ekklesia fight on their front
(and I fully support them) but we need rank and file, tabloid reading
ordinary Brits: not preachers. These are the majority, these are the
people we need to convince, these are the people whose hearts and minds
the nutters are after!
Let's attack Creationism from both sides - outflank them if you will,
because in Britain, I can't ever see us working on the same front and
it's pointless to even try as this latest spat is amply demonstrating.
3365
Timothy Chase
Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 21:51:00
On 05/10/06, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> If all the effort which has gone into this thread could have been
> focused on a domain name and getting it all up and running, imagine how
> far we would have got by now......????
Oh, I don't know.
I thought that the whole thing was an enlightening illustration of
causation in the realm of human action! Rather enjoyable, from a
certain perspective...
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3366
Roger Stanyard
Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 22:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> oeditor wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hell yes.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hence the need for the website and message board.
>
> If all the effort which has gone into this thread could have been
> focused on a domain name and getting it all up and running, imagine
how
> far we would have got by now......????
And, er, how mant more letters we would have out last week. And how
many more national newspapers we would have been in!
And Marc still can't get it.
>
3367
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 22:25:00
Guys, will you GET A GRIP??
Big deep breaths all round, and if the next thing you say isn't contructive,
Don't say it.
Complaining about what could have been - pointless.
Playing the blame game - pointless.
Arguing one more fecking word - POINTLESS.
I have strong opinions. I'm not shy about forcibly stating them (you may
have noticed). Being "the voice of reason" is not a position I often find
myself in, but here goes.
I believe that the yahoo group format is lending itself to long sprawling
arguments. Let's get the domain in place, get it hosted up, and try out a
format which allows threaded conversations, and separate zones for different
topics. Define clear rules, and stick to them.
If, in a months time, there is still a pitch battle raging, bin the damn
thing, and go find different avenues for continuing the campaign, in
whatever groups suit.
If there's any concern about comitting to the cost of hosting when there's
an uncertain future... I'll remove the pain. I will offer to host BCSE for
*three months* after that, if things are going well, we can move (easily) to
a commercial hoster, if not, well.. nobody is out of pocket.
Now, can we have a sensible discussion about something constructive?
Ian.
3368
Roger Stanyard
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 22:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Pardon me Lenny,
Marc,
You have committed nothing more than intellectual masturbation for
days.
I don't give a stuff what you opinions on religion are.
Last week, with the help of Michael Roberts, we got in the national
press and we had 19 letters out to MPs'
Here is your contribution to that:
(long, isn't it!!!!)
Write a letter to your MP and then come back to this group. If you
have a problem in between the two events, it's your problem, not ours.
I simply don't want to hear until you have done it.
Roger
3369
Mikey Brass
Get with the program people
05/10/2006 22:31:00
Ian's recent post is spot-on.
Ian, my offer of assistance stands.
3370
Ian Lowe
RE: Get with the program people
05/10/2006 22:43:00
> Ian's recent post is spot-on.
> Ian, my offer of assistance stands.
Thanks Mikey.
If we can get the domain sorted out, I'll get the basic structure in place -
it would be good to get a hand then: I'll contact you off list as soon as
the basics are in place.
Ian.
3371
Mikey Brass
Re: Get with the program people
05/10/2006 22:50:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
>> Ian's recent post is spot-on.
>> Ian, my offer of assistance stands.
>
> Thanks Mikey.
Good to know we can reasonably work together after the rocky start.
As for time frames: basically, I am busy this weekend and early next
week, as well as being almost uncontactable for the week before the
31st. I can help out a bit between then and help quite a lot for some
time after the 1 Nov.
3372
Timothy Chase
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 23:15:00
Marc,
I hope you don't mind, but for the sake of brevity (in large part
because I am at work) I am going to keep this short.
You write, "Marxists? What the hell has that got to do with it. Arabs?..."
Actually all Lenny is suggesting (or anyone else at this point) is
what you get to later on when you state, "We have to be pragmatic
about who we align ourselves with." He isn't suggesting that we let
people preach, at least not here, or for that matter that we give them
some sort of a free pass. We would still expect people to defend
their views as they are related to this list. If on the otherhand the
views they wish to express are either pro or con with regard to
religion, we can politely ask them to take those views elsewhere and
ask them to please stay on topic here.
If we take this pragmatic approach, there will be some people who you
may not like, but it should be possible to work with them. In other
cases something more along the lines of friendship may develop. Or
not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we should be able to
work together on the one point that this organisation is devoted to -
because we will ask that people take matters involving religion
somewhere else.
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3373
Lenny Flank
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
05/10/2006 23:55:00
>
"Marxists? What the hell has that got to do with it.
Nothing. Not a goddamn thing. And that is the point.
===================================
Lenny Flank
3374
Lenny Flank
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
06/10/2006
>Perhaps he got the wrong idea.
I'm sure he did. I'm sure he got the idea that this is a coalition
of anti-creationist forces, whomever they might be. Oddly, that is
the idea *I* had, too.
Instead, he discovered that our advertising is false, and that we are
just another groupuscule of atheist ideologues who simply can't
tolerate the presence of people who don't agree with them. Despite
all our public talk, the simple fact is that we really don't WANT any
help from theists, and theists simply aren't welcome here.
Perhaps I got the wrong idea, too. And, as a result, perhaps I
should re-think whether this group is worth bothering with. There
are already plenty of intolerant ideologues in the world, and I see
no need to be with more of them.
===================================
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
3375
Mikey Brass
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
06/10/2006 00:11:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> And, as a result, perhaps I
> should re-think whether this group is worth bothering with.
I was thinking similar until I read Ian's message, which basically
convinced me to remain for the time being.
3376
Lenny Flank
Re: Thinking aloud
06/10/2006 00:09:00
We need *everyone*
> who opposes creationism being taught in science classrooms.
>
Indeed, we will not win without them.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"
3377
Lenny Flank
Re: Thinking aloud
06/10/2006 00:08:00
>
> 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.
Depending on the circumstances, I quite disagree. The primary source
of fundie support is the idiotic idea that one simply cannot be both
religious and accept evolution, and that everyone has to be forced to
choose one or the other. Oddly, that is EXACTLY the attitude that
the atheist ideologues take, too.
The way to beat the fundies is to cut off their sources of funding,
to cut off the flow of new recruits, and to undermine the very core
of their argument. Not only IS it entirely possible to be both
religious and accept evolution, but THAT IS HOW MOST PEOPLE ARE.
Under those circumstances, it is absolutely vital that mainstream
religious groups point out, over and over and over and over again,
that "evolution" is no more "anti-Christian" than is mathematics or
weather forecasting or the rules of football.
If you force people to choose between evolution and religion, you
will lose. Whether you like that or not.
If you show people that no such choice is necessary, you will
undermine the fundie argument, and beat them.
And if all you want to do is fight with theists (even the theists who
are on our side), and if you simply cannot tolerate anyone who
mentions anything remotely religious in your presence, then you are
no help to us, and I kindly suggest that you run off and go wage your
jihad elsewhere, to your heart's content. You are hurting us more
than you are helping us, and we are lots better off without you.
Sorry to be blunt. But this idotic crap has gone on long enough.
It's time for us to either organize (and yes, that means EVERYONE),
or stop pretending that we want to.
Are we going to shit, or are we going to get off the toilet.
===================================
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
3378
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 00:21:00
> L> 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.
>
That's another issue.
If they support you against creationists, then you support them
against creationists. If you have other bitches with them, save it
for after the creationists are beaten. Then you can shoot at the
church to your heart's content.
In the meantime, you need their support against the creationists.
You simply will not win without it. So you had better learn how to
get along with them.
> 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%>
You are not going to win with, at most, 40% of the population. Like
it or not, you need theists to support you. You will not win without
them.
And screaming "religion is stupid!!!!!" at them, is, uh, probably not
going to win much support from them. Just ask Professor Dawkins.
> 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.
>
Can't do anything about the past. What matters now is if they are
willing to fight against creationism NOW. If they are, they're on
our side. If they're willing to fight FOR creationism, they are our
enemies. And if they haven't the bollocks to speak out either way,
then it's time to grab them by the throat and force them to.
> 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.
Those are side issues. They are simply not relevant to whether or
not creationism should be taught in class. So get over it.
>
> 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".
>
It takes two to tango.
We are here to organize anti-creationists. We're not here to fight
ideological battles with theists.
Suck it up harder. Or give it up entirely, and go wage holy war to
your heart's content. Elsewhere.
You can't fight theism and creationism at the same time.
So pick one.
===================================
Lenny Flank
3379
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 00:24:00
> a political fight.
>
> Short, clearer version -
>
> as you ave said many times Lenny, this is
> 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.
>
An even shorter, even clearer version ---------- if they oppose the
teaching of creationism, then they ARE on the same side as us.
And any other gripes you have with them are utterly irrelevant to
that.
If all the demons in Hell would come out publicly against teaching
creationism, I'd be willing to put in a good word for the Devil in
the House of Commons.
You don't win political fights by NOT making allies. That's how you
LOSE them.
===================================
Lenny Flank
3380
Lenny Flank
(Fwd) Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Re: Domain stuff,
06/10/2006 00:30:00
------- Forwarded message follows -------
To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
Priority: normal
From: "Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net>
Date sent: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:53:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Domain stuff,
webhosting etc..
Send reply to: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
> However, the above statement seems questionable to me. If I were a
> General (what the heck, why not Field Marshal), I think I would want
> the forces on my side to be convinced, not deluded.
Your idea of "deluded" is, well, your idea. It doesn't enter anywhere
into the calculations. After all, they think you are just as deluded
as you think they are. (shrug)
People who oppose creationists, are on your side. People who don't,
aren't. You need people on your side. And yes, that includes people
that you don't like. You will not win without them.
The difference between an "organizer" and a "preacher" is that the
"organizer" is able to put aside his disagreements with people and
work with anyone who supports him on this particular issue. A
"preacher", can't -- and simply won't tolerate the presence of anyone
he doesn't agree with.
We need organizers. We don't need preachers.
I find it illuminating that in every one of the 15 or so
evolution/creation groups and lists I've been in, I have never, ever,
not even once, seen any non-fundie evolution-supporting theist attack
any of the atheists present for being atheists, or make any attempt
whatever to convert them. In every instance, every single one, all
of
the attacks and polemics I have seen, went in one direction only.
If you absolutely positively cannot live with the presence of
theists, and absolutely positively cannot work with them as partners
towards our common goal, then I suggest you find another place to
wage
your ideological holy war. You do us far more harm than good.
Sorry for being blunt. But it's time to stop preaching and start
organizing.
Indeed, it's way PAST time.
If we are indeed a coalition of anti-creationist forces, then it's
time we cut all the idiotic "I won't work with THOSE deluded people"
horseshit, and start acting like a multifaceted coalition, one that
fights its enemy, not each other.
If, on the other hand, we are just another groupuscule of atheists
who
fight creationists merely as just another way to stamp out religion
(and theists aren't welcome here and their help isn't wanted), then
we
should stop lying to everyone by claiming otherwise.
So which is it?
===================================
Lenny Flank
------- End of forwarded message -------
===================================
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
3381
Timothy Chase
Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
06/10/2006 00:32:00
We can tear into each other tommorrow, if need be.
Today there were a great many insights on the part of a good number of people.
Let's enjoy it. And perhaps we can learn to be just a little easier
on each other, maybe even listen to what one another is actually
saying.
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3382
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 00:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> You can't fight theism and creationism at the same time.
>
On the contrary: there are the deluded, and the very deluded. Both in
need of enlightenment, some more seriously than the others.
I'd decided to shut up, but since you're pressing the point over and
over again, I'll point this out:
This is England we're talking about, not some red state (is that the
right colour? Sounds odd.) in the USA. Here, the *vast* majority of
people (not just the less-than-half figures bandied about) don't give
a toss about religion. Until, as Marc says, they disover that some
nutters are trying to ram it up their children's noses. Then they get
cross. The problem is that they *don't* know and preachers saying "er,
well, they've got it a *bit* wrong" makes them see it as a merely
religious matter and they go back to sleep.
Brian
who will also go back to sleep, until we can get this argument shunted
into the sidings on the new forum
3383
Timothy Chase
Re: Thinking aloud
06/10/2006 01:20:00
On 05/10/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Depending on the circumstances, I quite disagree. The primary source
> of fundie support is the idiotic idea that one simply cannot be both
> religious and accept evolution, and that everyone has to be forced to
> choose one or the other. Oddly, that is EXACTLY the attitude that
> the atheist ideologues take, too.
> ...
I will be going home soon and I will see what is left standing when I get there.
However, you would not allow people to preach or cite the Bible on
Debunk Creation. Consequently people of different religious
persuasions are able to get along together, for the most part.
The same thing can happen on this list, with pro and con religion
taken elsewhere - with designated lists.
However, if people keep reacting to one-another rather than thinking
before they post, there won't be anything left by the time I get home.
As Ian has said, we need to pull back and calm down.
3384
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 01:23:00
> This is England we're talking about, not some red state (is that the
> right colour? Sounds odd.) in the USA. Here, the *vast* majority of
> people (not just the less-than-half figures bandied about) don't give
> a toss about religion.
Then you have nothing to worry about from creationists, right . . . ?
Underestimating your enemy is a very bad thing to do. As is
overestimating your own strength.
I know how the fundies fight. I've watched it firsthand for 20
years. And your fundies are no different. In fact, your fundies ARE
our fundies. The ones who "don't give a toss about religion" WILL
give a toss, very quickly, if they think people are trying to stamp
out religion. And that is EXACTLY what the fundies will tell them is
happening.
If you turn this into a "theist vs atheist" fight, you will lose.
Badly.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
3385
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 01:35:00
I will keep it quick and catch the bus...
On 05/10/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
> ...
> This is England we're talking about, not some red state (is that the
> right colour? Sounds odd.) ...
Yes, red is the right color, although in reality there can be a big
difference depending upon what part of the state you are in. The
major metropolitan areas tend to be blue, whereas the more rural areas
tend to be red. Seattle is blue, east of Lake Washington is mostly
red.
> Brian
> who will also go back to sleep, until we can get this argument shunted
> into the sidings on the new forum
Ah, if only others would do the same.
Frankly, I think this makes a great deal of sense.
Take care,
Tim
3386
oeditor
Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 01:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > This is England we're talking about, not some red state (is that the
> > right colour? Sounds odd.) in the USA. Here, the *vast* majority of
> > people (not just the less-than-half figures bandied about) don't give
> > a toss about religion.
>
>
>
> Then you have nothing to worry about from creationists, right . . . ?
Well, I'm beginning to wonder, actually. It could be that science
education is being run down quickly enough without needing any help
from the nutters. (Don't ask, it would only start another unwanted
thread/)
>
> Underestimating your enemy is a very bad thing to do. As is
> overestimating your own strength.
>
> I know how the fundies fight. I've watched it firsthand for 20
> years. And your fundies are no different. In fact, your fundies
ARE > our fundies. The ones who "don't give a toss about religion"
WILL > give a toss, very quickly, if they think people are trying to
stamp > out religion.
Lenny, you just don't get it (to coin a phrase): they *wont*. "New
Labour", with the connivance of other parties, has got away with
murder. So letting religious maniacs into the schools is very small
beer to most parents. They're used to having to go to nativity plays
in red hats so their offspring know they're there. But it's no
different from morris dancing or well-dressing. A quaint antidiluvian
custom. Mother goes home and has a cup of tea, waits for child, and
says "Yes dear, I'm sure they didn't notice the mess I made of your
shepherd's outfit - oh, sorry, were you supposed to be a king? Well,
never mind. I'm sure Father Christmas will understand."
What matters is explaining to parents that there are people,
encouraged by Blair, who are determined to undermine their children's
education. That they are doing it in order to enforce their religious
beliefs. It's a religious attack on rationality. It may be the front
line, but it's just part of the war. We were winning, until your lot
appeared. And if 20 years haven't seen them driven off in your
country, then perhaps its time for a fresh approach in ours.
Brian
3387
Lenny Flank
Re: Thinking aloud
06/10/2006 02:17:00
>
> However, you would not allow people to preach or cite the Bible on
> Debunk Creation.
Actually that's not quite true. What I don't allow are "yes there's
a god", "no there's not" discussions. Those are pointless and don't
help anybody.
Pointing out that the fundies are simply wrong when they claim that
"evolution and religion can't co-exist", however, has always been
allowed at DC. Indeed, it is vital to beating the fundies.
And of course, it goes without saying that this isn't DC. ;)
===================================
Lenny Flank
3388
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 02:14:00
>It's a religious attack on rationality.
It's a FUNDAMENTALIST attack.
Most religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do.
It may be the front
> line, but it's just part of the war. We were winning, until your lot
> appeared.
Consider it payback for shipping off all your religious nutters to
the colonies back on the 17th century. (grin)
And if 20 years haven't seen them driven off in your
> country, then perhaps its time for a fresh approach in ours.
>
In 20 years, they'll still be in the UK too. They never give up.
And I've seen your approach, in action. It simply doesn't work.
(shrug)
===================================
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
3389
Timothy Chase
Preaching (was Re: Thinking aloud)
06/10/2006 04:00:00
On 05/10/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > However, you would not allow people to preach or cite the Bible on
> > Debunk Creation.
>
> Actually that's not quite true. What I don't allow are "yes there's
> a god", "no there's not" discussions. Those are pointless and don't
> help anybody.
> Pointing out that the fundies are simply wrong when they claim that
> "evolution and religion can't co-exist", however, has always been
> allowed at DC. Indeed, it is vital to beating the fundies.
Saying that some people can believe in a god and at the same time
accept evolutionary biology isn't preaching: it is simply a statement
of fact, nothing more. As for the implications, another time, another
place.
> And of course, it goes without saying that this isn't DC. ;)
I will grant as much. But I don't think that it makes much of a
difference, really, or for that matter will require that great of a
difference in terms of strategy.
Here is what I would suggest to everyone:
1. When someone first joins, they are given a list of the
organisations which are under the umbrella of BCSE. A short
description may or may not be included.
2. When a new organisation is formed, a list of all the organisations
will get sent out to the list to remind people of what organisations
are available and to announce the new organisation's formation.
3. If someone wishes to evangelicise for their particular worldview
or ideology, they are politely reminded that there exist forums where
their thoughts will be welcome, but that the main list is meant
specifically for organising and coordinating activities.
Not much to ask of everyone, really, and I think that we have pretty
much agreed upon taking this sort of approach, anyway.
Given the hard work some of us have put in to this so far (some of us
a great deal more than others), I think we can put forward a little
effort in this direction.
I fully realise it would be too much to ask people to put their
disagreements on hold for the interim. We are of course only human,
and it is a fact of human nature that we generally wish to convert
others to our point of view. Moreover, the interim could be a very
long time.
All I am suggesting is that we keep the wars off the main list. I
think this is quite doable. Moreover, it makes sense.
In any case, we can probably call it a night. In fact, I suspect most
of us have. I hope that people will take it easy on each-other in the
morning and give each-other a break. But if tommorrow some react to
what was said earlier today, take it easy on them as well. The last
three days have been difficult for everyone.
Take care,
Tim
--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk
3390
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 06:58:00
oeditor wrote:
>> I know how the fundies fight. I've watched it firsthand for 20
>> years. And your fundies are no different. In fact, your fundies
> ARE > our fundies. The ones who "don't give a toss about religion"
> WILL > give a toss, very quickly, if they think people are trying to
> stamp > out religion.
>
> Lenny, you just don't get it (to coin a phrase): they *wont*.
I completely disagree.
> What matters is explaining to parents that there are people,
> encouraged by Blair, who are determined to undermine their children's
> education. That they are doing it in order to enforce their religious
> beliefs. It's a religious attack on rationality.
No: it is a fundamentalist attack against mainstream religious and
scientific stances.
> It may be the front
> line, but it's just part of the war.
I am sorry you see the likes of myself as on the wrong side of the fence
then in "the war". Perhaps I should just leave.
3391
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 22:32:00
I'll chuck in some cash to help fund it for another few months and I'll
offer some expertise on the web programming (if necessary).
I also agree with Ian that Yahoo is actually aggravating this problem -
but that's something I said a long while back.
Ian Lowe wrote:
>
>
> Guys, will you GET A GRIP??
>
> Big deep breaths all round, and if the next thing you say isn't
> contructive,
> Don't say it.
>
> Complaining about what could have been - pointless.
> Playing the blame game - pointless.
> Arguing one more fecking word - POINTLESS.
>
> I have strong opinions. I'm not shy about forcibly stating them (you may
> have noticed). Being "the voice of reason" is not a position I often find
> myself in, but here goes.
>
> I believe that the yahoo group format is lending itself to long sprawling
> arguments. Let's get the domain in place, get it hosted up, and try out a
> format which allows threaded conversations, and separate zones for
> different
> topics. Define clear rules, and stick to them.
>
> If, in a months time, there is still a pitch battle raging, bin the damn
> thing, and go find different avenues for continuing the campaign, in
> whatever groups suit.
>
> If there's any concern about comitting to the cost of hosting when there's
> an uncertain future... I'll remove the pain. I will offer to host BCSE for
> *three months* after that, if things are going well, we can move
> (easily) to
> a commercial hoster, if not, well.. nobody is out of pocket.
>
> Now, can we have a sensible discussion about something constructive?
>
> Ian.
>
>
3392
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Just a thought...
05/10/2006 22:29:00
You're right Roger. We can't agree on this. I'm not the only dissenter
though.
We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different. We
don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
I'm angry because in spite of ridding ourselves of the awful Cowan, we
have to do with a bleating professional Christian which we don't need.
He comes in an starts a war by telling me to talk sense and calling
Cohen's piece crap. Brilliant!
Now we've lost Ian and possibly others too: people who really do get
stuff done.
I'm ready to stand up and be counted. I've been to the protests. I've
mounted petitions, pestered politicians, written to papers, spoken to
journos, addressed people at meetings. I helped with the Liddle
documentary and I helped get Stefan into the next protest against a
Vardy school... and the pressure that we helped assert has driven public
opinion against a Vardy academy in Blythe. 75% against at the last I
read the poll - not that I expect it will do that much to stop them.
Michael helped get us a mention in one (albeit quality) paper.... with
a readership that doesn't really need converting. But they were YOUR
words Roger. Yours.
Vardy is at the front end of this debate. Keep exposing him as a lying,
cheating fraud and the whole thing will become apparent to all.
Let Christians fight on their own front: I don't want to fight alongside
them.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > oeditor wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hell yes.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hence the need for the website and message board.
> >
> > If all the effort which has gone into this thread could have been
> > focused on a domain name and getting it all up and running, imagine
> how
> > far we would have got by now......????
>
> And, er, how mant more letters we would have out last week. And how
> many more national newspapers we would have been in!
>
> And Marc still can't get it.
>
> >
>
>
3393
Roger Stanyard
Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 07:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Let Christians fight on their own front: I don't want to fight
alongside
> them.
>
Then you have to make the choice; stay with us or leave.
Roger
3394
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 07:37:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different. We
> don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here are
packed on a Saturday.
I utterly fail to see why no atheist and no religious bashing is so hard
to achieve on this list. I also do not see textual discussions as being
pro or anti-religious, rather just, well, examinations of historical texts.
> He comes in an starts a war by telling me to talk sense and calling
> Cohen's piece crap. Brilliant!
Except that the distrust of atheists and the distrust of theists then
escalated it all. *That* is the point.
> Let Christians fight on their own front: I don't want to fight alongside
> them.
I guess I am not wanted then, right? I am happy to walk away from those
who do not wish co-operation.
3395
Roger Stanyard
Reminder of the Ground Rules
06/10/2006 07:58:00
It's clear we have a major crisis on our hands this morning.
Marc has openly stated that he is refusing to work with us unless we
agree to his rules.
Mikey and Lenny are questioning whether hey want to stay in the group.
Ian has offered us a way out which I will be following up seperately
within the next hour or so.
Methinks at the moment having a seperate sub-group within the group
to discuss religion is only a patch. It doesn't fix the problem.
So, I think it is time to remind people what we have agreed over the
last three months.
1. BCSE is there to help other anti-creationist groups such as SJS,
No to Academies, the BHA and so on.
2. That is not conditional on the religious positions of either
ourselves or the groups we support. The BHA, which has helped us, has
no qualms about associating itself with religious groups.
3. Ipso Facto we have to be neutral when it comes to religion.
4. There is no agreement amongst group members to run BCSE and
Blackshadow as atheist organisations.
5. If it is run as an atheist organistion it will collapse within 24
hours.
Let me remind everyone - Roberts was a senior figure in the UK anti-
creationist movement. He walked away from us. There are three others
in this group set to walk away unless we get this issue sorted PDQ.
I ma going to open a poll in a few minutes to ask members which way
forward they want the group to go - religiously neutral or as an
atheist group.
As we have to work quickly to get this sorted, the poll will only be
open for 48 hours.
I will be voting for us being religiously neutral. If the vote goes
my way, I will impose religious neutrality on the Yahoo group. Those
that refuse to accept it will either be put on moderated status or
asked to leave the group.
If the vote goes against me, my position within BCSE will be
untenable and I will step down from all activism to be an observer
only. I am not prepared to back loosers.
Let me remind everybody what I mean about religiously neutral. That
emans we are indifferent to religion - it's not our business. We will
work with anyone, irrespective of their religious opinions, as long
as they oppose creationism.
I'm sorry that this morning we have been pushed to this position but
the issue is that serious. It's ripping us to pieces.
Roger
3396
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New poll for BlackShadow
06/10/2006 08:07:00
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
BlackShadow group:
Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral and should be
attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of their religious opinions and
beliefs?
o Yes
o No
o No Opinion
o Prefer it to be an atheistic organisation
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://surveys?id=2348135
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
3397
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Yet Again the Point is Missed
06/10/2006 08:37:00
On 05 oct 2006, at 23:22, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Last week, with the help of Michael Roberts, we got in the national
> press
That's funny, because he seemed really pissed off about it...
3398
JAF
Discussion (oportunity for publlicity)
06/10/2006 09:05:00
Take a look (and add a comment) to this 'discussion' on the Guardian pages.
http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@146.78LTlABoS1q.3@.7759d80b
http://tinyurl.co.uk/3ith
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
3399
Dave Oldridge
Re: Thinking aloud
06/10/2006 09:42:00
On 5 Oct 2006 at 19:08, Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Depending on the circumstances, I quite disagree. The primary
> source of fundie support is the idiotic idea that one simply
> cannot be both religious and accept evolution, and that
> everyone has to be forced to choose one or the other. Oddly,
> that is EXACTLY the attitude that the atheist ideologues take,
> too.
Indeed, which is why I've coined the term "fundy atheist." Their
interpretation of Christian doctrine is almost exactly the same
as that of the fundy theists, except they hate it instead of
espousing it.
And at the root of this is the creationists' BIG LIE. Which is
that evolution is anti-Christian (or anti-Muslim).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3400
Ian Lowe
RE: (Fwd) Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Re: Domain stuff,
06/10/2006 09:39:00
> In every instance, every single one, all of the attacks and polemics I
have seen, went in one direction only.
So, has your experience coloured you to the point that every time someone
says "please be neutral" or "please apply the rules evenly", all you hear is
"death to the Christians"?
Michael Roberts launched an attack on Richard Dawkins, and was not chastised
for it - he was applauded. This entire episode of bad blood has stemmed from
Michael Robert's posts.
He broke the rules, and was not pulled up for it - is it any wonder that
everyone who *has* been pulled up for breaking those rules is feeling
annoyed?
> If you absolutely positively cannot live with the presence of
theists,
What I absolutely cannot live with is the environment where people like
Michael Roberts are cheered on when they attack a prominent atheist, but
anyone who says about word about the religious is chastised.
All I want is fairness. Consistent application of the rules. Real
Neutrality, rather than a Muzzle for the atheists.
I.