Utterly Bonkers Kooks demand a table at the Oz Global Atheist Conference!

[Justin]

Well I didn't write that title... it's way too polite.

It comes from an article on the Adelaide-based Antitheist News (http://www.antitheistdaily.com) where there is article (http://www.antitheistdaily.com/2009/12/02/utterly-bonkers-kooks-demand-a-table-at-the-oz-global-atheist-conference/) detailing how the managing director of Creation Ministries has written to the organisers asking to set up a debate on Evolution with the leading players on both sides at the convention. David Nicholls' response is truly excellent...

Enjoy...

[wearestardust]

David Nicholls FTW!

[Goonies]

OMG! Dr Creationist Ministries has a MAJOR problem with comprehension it seems!! How many flipping times does he have to be told we won't be pandering to him.

Well done once again David.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I agree 100% with David on this one. And besides the debate will just be another Logic vs Bullshit debate. I think such a "debate" will impede the purpose of the convention.

[philphil1]

well done David Nicholls!! especcially because of the restraint needed to word the reply so reservedly, iinstead of just letting the loons have it.

[eccles]

Well I didn't write that title... it's way too polite.

It comes from an article on the Adelaide-based Antitheist News (http://www.antitheistdaily.com) where there is article (http://www.antitheistdaily.com/2009/12/02/utterly-bonkers-kooks-demand-a-table-at-the-oz-global-atheist-conference/) detailing how the managing director of Creation Ministries has written to the organisers asking to set up a debate on Evolution with the leading players on both sides at the convention. David Nicholls' response is truly excellent...

Enjoy...

Let them have a table and we'll do them like a dinner.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@eccles: I'm not all that confident... More than likely they'll waste everybody's time with a "debate" as they call it.

[gruber]

Just put a chair in front of one of the toilets and say "start debating" cause then they'll been arguing against the same thing thats coming out of their mouth

[Homosapien]

They seam to have a problem with the word NO!
NO means NO!
Both deluded and persistant. That's dangerous!

[bennyrose]

It's interesting to note the Creationtards got the order of the emails wrong ;)

Deception can be subtle but it is still deception (http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2009/12/02/deception-can-be-subtle-but-still-deception/)

Oh dear, actually went onto their website to the FAQ part. That was probably the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read. My 2 favourite gems from the same page were.

If the fossil record did take millions of years to form, then the Bible is wrong about the history of the earth and life on it.
Correct.

and

So, if these existed millions of years before there were people, then the Bible is wrong when it indicates that these ‘bad’ things are part of the Curse on creation, which only came about because of the rebellion of the first man, Adam, against his Creator.

However, the Bible is the very Word of God, affirmed as absolutely true by the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. John 10:35). Thus, we can expect the evidence to be consistent with what the Bible teaches, regardless of how many people believe otherwise.
No comment.

But seriously, I knew these numpties were deluded, but this was worse than I thought. Proof that the bible is correct comes from the bible? Interesting concept.

[Annie]

We need posts like Justins to remind us that yes, they really are STILL that stoopid!:eek:

[Dan]

@eccles: I'm not all that confident... More than likely they'll waste everybody's time with a "debate" as they call it.

In my experience you can't have such a debate, it is simply impossible. Your right they would waste our time as they do not partake in debates but rather preach and as always never listen or think it's just closed minded primative crap.

I'm sure we have all encountered the impossible task of trying to get a reasoned debate our of religious people at some stage in our lives.

[TheAtheist]

I know I am going to get into trouble for this but::

I thought idiots were not allowed at this convention.

How did creationists get invited?:p

[Chrys Stevenson]

Convention tickets are available to anyone who wishes to attend. No-one has been asked to show their 'atheist credentials'. Of course, the over-whelming majority of people at the Convention will be atheists, agnostics, skeptics, rationalists and humanists. But it is inevitable that there will also be some theists present.

As far as I'm aware (and although I'm in close contact with the Committee, I'm not privy to their deliberations), there is no 'official policy' on this. But, in my view, theists attending the Convention are just as much the guests of the organizers as atheists. They have paid their money and, as long as they are not disruptive, they should be welcome. Let's not give any support to the 'angry atheist' stereotype.

Of course, unlike many theists, we do not expect them to 'respect' our point of view. Divergent points of view will not be silenced. There will be Q&A sessions after each speaker in which they will have an opportunity to ask questions. This does not mean they will be allowed to dominate such sessions, but there is room for alternative points of view - not only amongst theists and non-theists, but also amongst ourselves. Not everyone is going to agree on every point that every speaker makes.

Theists intending to visit the Convention should be aware, though, that religion will not be held sacrosanct. People deserve respect, ideas, philosophies and institutions do not - especially ideas, philosophies and institutions with the shameful track-records of the world's religions. Religion and religious leaders will be openly criticized, sometimes ridiculed, and held up for intense critical scrutiny. If theists are going to be offended by that, they would be better not to attend. They may do well to remember that many of us are incredibly offended by things that are said and done in churches and that rather than choose to go and be offended, or go and disrupt services, the great majority of us simply choose to stay away.

In short, my personal wish is that everyone at the Convention, whether theist or non-theist, will come with open minds, ready to learn and consider alternative points of view and that, until someone proves they are there to be disruptive, we should welcome everyone in a spirit of friendship. After all, we are not just there to preach to the converted. Some of those theists attending may just leave thinking, "You know what? I don't agree with everything they said, but they made good points, and they were actually really nice people."

We may not agree on everything (or anything!) but that doesn't mean that anyone has to be rude, aggressive, dominating or bullying - regardless of what 'side' you're on.

Disclaimer: Please note, these are my personal views. I have not consulted the Committee before writing this and this should not be taken in any way as expressing their opinions either personally or collectively.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

There better be some decent security involved as I suspect that disruptions in service is EXACTLY what will arise from some of the theists who attend.

[Chrys Stevenson]

Of course, any theists disrupting the proceedings or protesting outside should be aware that they are proving our point about the danger religion poses to freedom of speech. Putting on my PR/Media hat, I can only say that disruptions of this kind will feed right into publicizing our grievances against religion. I would hope even the most fundamentalist theist would have enough insight to realize that bad behaviour on their part will only backfire on them and add weight to our arguments.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The bad behavior might indeed wreck the reputation of religion even further but the show must go on.

[Chrys Stevenson]

The bad behavior might indeed wreck the reputation of religion even further but the show must go on.

"Hey kids! Let's put on a show!"

http://www.seniorplaza.nl/GarlandRooney.jpg

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Anybody got one of them high definition camcorders? That would be even better. Remember that the more that theists act stupid the better the results.

[Chrys Stevenson]

Anybody got one of them high definition camcorders? That would be even better. Remember that the more that theists act stupid the better the results.

If you're hoping to film "Theists Misbehaving" you'll have to do it outside the Convention Centre I'm afraid.

The venue, itself, has strict rules about unauthorized filming. Whether or not the Convention is filmed by the organizers, attendees are precluded from filming by the Convention centre's own rules.

"The Licensee must not make (or permit the making of) any audio and/or visual recording or make (or permit the making of) any Broadcasting or communication of the Event (or any part of the Event) without MCET’s Approval and MCET reserves the right to charge a fee and place any other conditions on the recording, Broadcasting or communication of the Event."

[Fearless]

Put a table up for debate and every guests seat would have to be fitted with an emergency sick bag...

[wearestardust]

We may not agree on everything (or anything!) but that doesn't mean that anyone has to be rude, aggressive, dominating or bullying - regardless of what 'side' you're on.


A point worth remembering given even we atheists sometimes vehemently disagree on stuff.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@Kristy: Maybe not an individual member of the convention but what about official filming? Like what are the regulations regarding official and licenced camera recordings? I presume those will all be done by a licensed professional photographer/videographer right?

[Chrys Stevenson]

@Kristy: Maybe not an individual member of the convention but what about official filming? Like what are the regulations regarding official and licenced camera recordings? I presume those will all be done by a licensed professional photographer/videographer right?

The organizers can have filming done with permission from the venue. Casual filming will not be allowed.

Again, as I understand it, the Committee has a number of offers from professional video producers which are under consideration.

The Committee is aware of the historic significance of the occasion.

There are some issues which would need to be resolved prior to a final decision being made about filming - not the least of which is that major speakers, in particular, would need to sign releases. Some may have terms which will have to be agreed to, not only by the Committee, but by video producers, distributors, etc. Contracts between video producer/committee/AAI/distributor etc also need to be discussed and agreed upon. These are complex issues and not likely to be resolved until closer to the event.

Whatever decisions are made with regard to filming (or not filming) the Convention, the fact remains that a DVD is unlikely to provide the full content of the Convention and certainly will not come anywhere near the experience of being there.

No-one is trying to be coy here. The fact is simply that, while at this stage, filming is certainly being considered, there will be, as I understand it, no firm plans or commitments until a number of complex issues are resolved.

The organizing committee is doing a fabulous job and you guys just need to trust that they will do everything in their power to do what's right for the Convention and atheism in general. We're all on the same team here, and we all have the same goals.

Now, stop hassling, will ya? ;-)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@Kristy: Thanks for that. At least my question about the filming was answered just then. I do have to admit that organization for the convention seems to have come a long way, despite rejection of funding from the Victorian government and what not. Now I'd love to see the religious fellas (Parliament of World Religions, or POWR [pronounced "powarrrrr" <"power" in your best pirate accent>]) try that without their precious $4.5million leached off from taxpayer's money!

[Chrys Stevenson]

We don't need $4.5 million to put on a great show. We have the world's best intellects, we have an incredibly committed group of talented people planning the convention, and we are all determined to make this something that will totally blow you away.

By the way, tickets for the full weekend are over 90% sold out, so if you know anyone who wants to come for the full experience, they had better get in quickly. (Sunday only tickets are still available).

[Ford]

I won’t go back and find the quotes, but do have a worry about security.
If it is in hand, good. However, to militant theists, we are the enemies of The Creator and when you are fighting to protect the Word of God, (Bible, Koran etc) those who are not of ‘the chosen’ are fair game. Look around and see how theists typically handle competition.

I have said it for years and say again. “The only way a religious argument is ever ‘settled’ is when one side kills the other”. Faith has always trumped logic. That may be changing, but expect vigorous rear guard action.

Society is now in a state of religious flux. We have access to a worldwide spectrum of belief systems, each with its own history and raison d’etre. We can choose to examine them or not. It’s probably fair to say that most atheists have examined (at least) their inherited religion and found it wanting. For most escapees, questioning started with Darwin and/or the logic of Scientific Method but many theists were quarantined from such ideas and simply don't know they exist.

As atheism gathers momentum it will be opposed by the faithful with escalating resistance. An example of such resistance could be the refusal of funding, maybe the cyber attack on the website was one and we can expect more. We are in a hard market of ideas here and we are upsetting some desperate people.

Those who have stayed in and chosen not to question, apologists all, see their role as protectors of their specific faith against anything or anyone that has the potential to weaken that faith. As has been said already, to act to protect the faith against overwhelming evidence it is wrong is seen as martyrdom and earns a lot of Heavenly Brownie points!

So, my opinion in essence, is that theists will be there to disrupt. That disruption may take the form of faith based questions, the usual little ‘gems’ they serve up to the applause of their groupies, but it could be worse. Planned major disruption using chanting, banner waving and even more serious acts of aggression is possible.

The potential for violence is real, so professional security is essential. It won’t prevent shots of theists being bundled out being filmed on cell phones to be used as propaganda later. We can hardly confiscate all phones at the door, but if we are prepared, we can respond with dignity as we must and the mainstream press will do the rest.

Is this realism or pessimism? Maybe the theist group is there this time to reconnoitre, not start a battle but I doubt it. The target is too tempting!

[Chrys Stevenson]

You've made a good point, Ford. I imagine this is something that has already been considered by the organizing committee but this is a good reminder.

I do think that those groups most likely to protest probably realize that they will only give our cause publicity by doing so and that trying to hinder free speech will only reflect badly on them.

Nevertheless, if there are picketers, it is important that those attending the convention do not provoke them. They have a right to assembly and a right to express their view as long as they are orderly, non-violent, and don't disrupt the passage of our delegates in and out of the Convention Centre. I would hope our people would respond with dignity and good humour in this circumstance.

The fact that any theist who wishes to get into the auditorium will have needed to spend a minimum of $150 odd dollars hopefully means that we'll get a better class of theist inside. ;-)

At this stage, apart from the DDoS attack, it seems to me that the policy of theistic rabble-rousers is to ignore us because to do otherwise simply proves our point and makes them look bad.

[Dan]

We will probably never know the source of the DoS but there is a chance that it had nothing to do with religion. Botnet operations often run demonstrations of their capabilities to potential buyers. Event organisers are a favourite pick because the operator is able to show their ability to cause major disruptions. Although personally I feel the DoS was most likely targeted at the AFA for obvious reasons.

I would expect the god squad to be present in one form or another but so long as they aren't wearing explosives it doesn't concern me.

[Ford]

I imagine this is something that has already been considered by the organizing committee.


Thanks Kristy, I'm happy with that.
The problem we have (it seems to me) is that being free of any need to protect an indefensible belief system, we innocently expect to be left to go about our business as we respect that right in others. :)

[TheAtheist]

Unfortunately financial objectives do not concern theists.
So I am afraid that many of the seats will have been booked by militant theists who plan to cause great disruption at this event.
Also unfortunately there is no way of telling whether they are theist or atheist.
Maybe we make them swear to the atheistic creed at the door:mad:;):D.

[Chrys Stevenson]

Unfortunately financial objectives do not concern theists.
So I am afraid that many of the seats will have been booked by militant theists who plan to cause great disruption at this event.
Also unfortunately there is no way of telling whether they are theist or atheist.
Maybe we make them swear to the atheistic creed at the door:mad:;):D.

I think this is highly unlikely. There has been no indication whatsoever that anyone is planning to disrupt the event. In fact, the only sense I get from 'sniffing' around the net is that theists planning to attend are there out of curiosity, not out of a desire to disrupt the proceedings. Let's not demonise theists as they demonise us. I think it is far more likely that liberal Christians will come along for a look see than any rabid fundamentalists.

I have been informed that the Committee will have security working at the Convention and that the police will also be informed of the event so anyone planning to cause disruption will be promptly dealt with.

[Dan Gleibitz]

Oh, when will we learn? Michael Shermer (http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2009/12/02/beverly-hills-battle-for-evolution-against-intelligent-design/) and Donald Prothero (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/battle-in-bever.html) duked it out with a pair of Discovery Institute charlatans recently, to predictable results: the creationists cried victory afterwards. It simply doesn't matter that they had no evidence. Anyway, a couple of things struck me as too typical in these affairs.

I know many think that such debates are never a good idea, but I think they do have their place. But this probably isn't it. The event is by atheists, for atheists. If there was some kind of new reason to revisit the question of the existence of a god, perhaps a debate would be warranted.

But there isn't! All they've got is a god of the gaps, a book full of holes and a bunch of nonsensical philosophical proofs.

Giving half of a debate over to people who are unable to produce a single good reason why anybody should believe in a god, and having them argue that this god created the earth, would amount to gross over-representation of insanity.

We've all seen how the debate would go. They'd pick apart the 'gaps' in evolution evidence and theory, insist that Darwin was a racist, and produce a handful of hilarious pseudo-scientific proofs that events told in Genesis have roots in reality (eg. a big flood).

It's absurd.

Even if they were able to convince everybody that evolution was bunk (they couldn't), that would tell us zip about the validity of creation theory. Supposing they managed to overthrow every single piece of evidence for evolution (they can't), that would leave a debate about two unsupported theories. It would not make their version of the creation myth any more convincing.

Their '6 days' version would still be absolutely unsupported by evidence - wouldn't carry any more weight than any nonsense that any one of us could conceive of if we ran a competition to see who could invent the most absurd creation myth ever. And that's why rational people demand evidence before they believe, because otherwise they would end up believing in an infinite number of absurdities....:rolleyes:

Sigh. I shouldn't try to make a point when I can only make it so poorly and others here have previously made it so well. Chalk this one up to practice? :)

[Dan Gleibitz]

Eww:
All of these make it overwhelmingly plain in their writings that their reasons for rejecting Christianity and the God of the Bible are firmly founded on and reinforced by their faith in evolution. http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Faith is belief without evidence. There is much evidence to support evolution. Ergo, belief in evolution is not 'faith'.

All CMI offices are of course certain that goo-to-you evolution is not only spiritually but also intellectually bankrupt. CMI-Australia in particular became convinced that with the world’s top atheists boastfully proclaiming their faith and its alleged “intellectual foundations” (evolutionary science) in Australia, we had a duty to make a public stand in response—fully conscious that the real warfare is spiritual. In 2 Corinthians 10:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=ESV&passage=2%20Corinthians%2010:4) the Apostle Paul says that “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” In the very next verse he sets out what the apostles went about doing (bold emphasis ours): “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Okay, I've read enough. :rolleyes:

[Dan Gleibitz]

Chuckle. I had a thought.

It would be funny to take them up on the debate, invite them to fly their best and brightest 'scientists' (upchuck (http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Man-who-found-time.html)) to Melbourne at their own expense...

The debate goes as follows.
Moderator: "First up, let's hear from the creationists on the extent of scientific evidence supporting biblical creation...."

[Faffing sound as creationists realise they have no working microphones]

Moderator: "Okay, so there's no scientific evidence supporting biblical creation? Fine, let's move to the evidence supporting evolution...."

What follows is 3x1 hour long presentations from, say, PZ, Dawkins and Robyn Williams on various aspects of evolution science. :D

Meanwhile the creationists can either sit by and listen, or be escorted out if they make a scene. :cool:

[Prisoner of the Sun]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if anyone else has seen this. Apparently, Carl wieland took up David's offer and emailed a request to PZ Myers via his blog to participate in a group debate. There is also a link to the email conversation with David Nicholls on CMI's website.

The request got a suitably brief reply from PZ, which in turn got an outraged entry on the CMI website.

This http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php is the entry on Pharyngula with links to Carl Wieland's logs.

On a personal note, I completely agree with David's position on the debate. We are in a no-win situation, and the majority of the target audience will already have made up their mind on the issue anyway.

Tony.