View Full Version : What it looks like from the other side..
18th January 2010, 12:00 PM
(I apologise if there's already a thread covering this.. the info is a couple of weeks old. If so, a mod should perhaps move or delete this post)
Had a chat with a creationist friend recently, who seemed somewhat excited to remember (so he could tell me) about the GAC and the organiser's refusal to have a debate against CMI (Creation Ministries International) representatives. He took the opportunity to have a shot at Prof. Dawkins' refusal to debate creationists as well. I swear, the look on his face was one of a cat with the still-wriggling tail of a goldfish protruding from the corner of his mouth.
So I Googlefied some appropriate words and found this:
Propaganda, anyone ?
19th January 2010, 08:52 PM
Atheism = faith in evolution (the world made itself)
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. They fully understand, sometimes better than many Christians, how evolution and its “millions of years” completely undermines and destroys the whole logical foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Refering to Singer, Dawkins, Myers et al! How wrong can you get???What a bunch of ignorant asshats!!
20th January 2010, 10:06 PM
Is an ongoing tragedy. I don't know whether to laugh, tease or feel sorry for these people.
30th January 2010, 05:54 AM
I see they are feeling a bit left out:
On the same weekend as the Rise of Atheism conference, we are countering with a special multi-session seminar. Find out the arguments the atheists didn’t want to face up to! (http://creation.com/article/7185)
They're upset because Richard doesn't want to play with them, diddums.
30th January 2010, 09:05 AM
That idiot Blair put things backwards with his promotion of ‘faith’ schooling, and its happening here as well. With those joint idiots of Rudd and Abbott things are set to get even worse here.
Even I have to admit that religions have a case when they see so much money and praise going into catholic schools. It’s is only fair that those of other religions get the same favours, only a matter of time before we see state funded scientology schools. Then there is the sham of ‘home schooling’, it’s all government supported child abuse.
Haven’t we learned anything from Northern Ireland, this apartheid has to stop. All children have to attend proper schools, with a standard, sensible curriculum for a set number of hours a week. Nothing much can be done about what their parents do with them outside of that but at least we wouldn't be paying for it and they get some exposure to reality and get to mix with children they are taught are off to hell. People have been saying it for decades yet non-schooling continues to grow.
Fortunately I am not an Australian citizen so I am spared the pain of voting – just who does an ‘atheist’ vote for in this place. Not believing in god(s) earns me the label ‘atheist’, I don’t believe in astrology (flat earth, unicorns, the secret) either so what is my label for that.
We don’t need ‘atheist’ schools, just normal ones where the need for critical thinking and evidence is understood.
30th January 2010, 10:46 AM
Has Joseph Alois Ratzinger(or any of his predecessors) ever taken part in debate, I suspect Prof Dawkins would jump at that opportunity.
Imagine that great ‘wordsmith’ Rudd (or Blair or Abbot) on stage with Christopher Hitchens, makes me cringe just to think about it.
30th January 2010, 11:42 AM
As I understand it, Dawkins usually doesn't 'debate' creationists because of the risk of this giving them credibility as a result of his standing - creationists like to tout the famous people they have debated. If I recall correctly he was convinced of this view by Stephen J Gould.
More practically, debating creationists is pointless anyway. They don't listen, just keep repeating the same discredited ideas, and even after being totally pwnd they loudly claim victory. This is unsurprising given their views are based on (their peculiar, and not agreed by many christians, view of) the bible, not evidence, and the evidence has to be filtered and manipulated to fit the supposed biblical view.
30th January 2010, 11:47 AM
If 'theism' is the coffee and 'atheism' is the filter...
1st February 2010, 03:03 PM
These folk present rubbish on their web site, why give them better platforms to spout from? Sure, we should make sure that their arguments are properly responded to, rather than leaving them unchallenged, although its hard to do on their web site. By and large the best approach is to ignore them when they try to find propaganda leverage, and counter them when they spout.
1st February 2010, 04:02 PM
You can't debate creationist's it simply is not possible. Why, because they are not open to debate. That's the whole point of religion, mindless devotion.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.