Give it up, McIntosh

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:12 am

I'm not sure what went on on the Facebook page as I'm not a member and can't access it


Since I'm no longer a member Cathy I'll probably not be allowed to access it either.

However, the comments I've pasted are typical of the nastiness that I've been experiencing over the last few days.

Floyd's reference to "their beliefs" implies that Christians are not fully accepted into the group, at least that's how I read it.

In the fight against creationism a person's religious beliefs shouldn't matter. I don't know why it's so important to people like Floyd and the others.

Perhaps fighting creationism isn't what's really important to them.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby colmo » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:08 am

It is an Open Facebook group - anyone can see the contents of it: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CausewayCampaign/ - please do not play the victim for being unable to read a document because you voluntarily left the group.

In the context of the argument that raged over a day or so, and the previous comment Peter did not post prior to Steve's, both criticisms are not 'nastiness' - here's the full context:

Colin Morrison uploaded a file.
A chronology of the disagreement between Peter Henderson and the rest of the group. I am formally requesting an apology from Peter for his repeated insistence that the group 'promotes Atheism', which of course it does not, and that he and Gary Sparkes work out their disagreement in private.

Shane McKee Guys, I think everyone should take a bit of time out and read Chris Steadman's fantastic book "Faitheist", which gives a hugely valuable perspective on how people with different views might wish to approach each other in a constructive fashion.

Steve McDonagh ah 'mon Shane one of the joys of life is poking fundies with a stick an activity which I have found to be really constructive .. although it is very likely they don't share that opinion.

PJ Floyd I'm all for engaging Shane but when they point blank refuse to engage on any point that threatens their beliefs it's no longer constructive.


Steve was not a participant to the major part of the argument and so likely did not know the outworkings of it, and was, knowing him, going for comedic effect - I laughed!

I agree with PJ wholeheartedly, and a read of the file I posted would show you why - I can make it available by other means if it remains somehow unavailable.

Peter requested that 'Christians be given leeway' and was asked to clarify this. He did not, and in the ensuing argument employed several arguments used by creationists. It was Peter's intransigence, engineering a 'crisis' in the process, that caused this to boil over. The victim here is the group, which Peter bad-mouthed without apology, which if he had given, would have been the end of the matter. I'll be reviewing rules with the other admins which, up until now, we've managed to do without, to ensure no-one feels victimised and at the same time hold members accountable for the their actions.

To quote Gary, who was the main participant in the argument with Peter:

I don't think this is genuinely related to religious versus irreligious disagreements - that's what Peter was trying to engineer. This was just a case of someone employing underhanded discussion tactics to avoid taking responsibility for their remarks and then running off to other sites to bad-mouth this one. Atheist, theist, or FSMist - there are repercussions to treating other people with disdain.


Edit: It has been posited that Peter is losing his faith - this would go a long way to explaining his behaviour, and if so he has my sympathy - it's not pleasant. The group remains open to him, and if he takes some time out, he'll hopefully come back a happier and wiser person than when he left.
colmo
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby cathy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:40 am

Hi Colmo I definitely can't see it because I'm a dinosaur that has avoided joining facebook. Even tho its an open group you need a facebook log in to access it. At some point I will be forced to join, if only to play more scrabble and see what my kids are up to, but for the moment I cannot comment on what is going on and am curious?

I'm a reluctant atheist and was once a moderate Christian. I'm anti creationist and anti all the s@@@ that goes with it (it's often accompanied by homophobia, misogyny, stupidity in other areas of life and a persecution complex), but not particularly bothered by the vast majority of believers whom I often find hold identical opinions to me on most important things in life (creationism is bullshit, homophobia, misogyny are wrong and so on).

Anyway just to let you know I haven't seen anything so my comments are uninformed at the moment and just represent my opinions in general. But I stand by those opinions.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby cathy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:01 am

Olivia Benson has had some things to say about rampantly sexist attitudes - to put it mildly - and women delegates being molested (?) in lifts at conferences, IIRC. I doubt, though, that these problems are characteristic of the atheist/secular/skeptic world. More likely to be characteristic of the USA. (Where's that smiley for hiding under the table?)

I don't think they are characteristic of atheists in general either, just the hard line Dawkins fans. I can say the only place I've come across attitudes that most folk ditched in the late 1980s is the Richard Dawkins website - and he has often joined in on the side of the dinosaurs. Sometimes it is like stepping into a time machine and being transported back to a carry on movie - I go there very ocassionally to make my flesh creep and to remind myself the good old days were crap really. Well really to see has it improved and sometimes it has, but it always reverts.

Which is sad given how much he used to contribute brilliantly to the religious extremism debate. Maybe he's having a mid life crisis?

Whether they are all American dinosaurs or not I don't know. Or whether he just attracts a lot that have come from extremist sexist religious backgrounds and have never had to acknowledge women as human beings, or are just made women haters by frustration I don't know. I do think Dawkins spends too much time pandering specifically to the lowest level of his American fans now and that is why he's lost the plot on a lot of things - including his attitudes to women? But they are a weird out of touch bunch on most things. I guess thats the reason I'm such a reluctant atheist.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:59 am

Steve was not a participant to the major part of the argument and so likely did not know the outworkings of it, and was, knowing him, going for comedic effect - I laughed!


I am not a fundie Colin. I resent being labelled as such.

I agree with PJ wholeheartedly, and a read of the file I posted would show you why - I can make it available by other means if it remains somehow unavailable.


What is Floyd talking about when he refers to "their beliefs" ? If Christians are supposedly welcome in this anti creationist group then what's the big deal about explaining their position any more than Atheists ? There are plenty of religious groups where you can do this. Premier's unbelievable is an excellent example.

and what does Floyd mean by the term "us" ? Who are "us" and who are "they". I assume that "us" are Atheists and "they" are Christians which only confirms my feeling that the causeway anti creation group is an Atheist one. If Christians were truly welcome in ther group there wouldn't be an "US" and "they" situation.

Peter requested that 'Christians be given leeway' and was asked to clarify this. He did not, and in the ensuing argument employed several arguments used by creationists. It was Peter's intransigence, engineering a 'crisis' in the process, that caused this to boil over. The victim here is the group, which Peter bad-mouthed without apology, which if he had given, would have been the end of the matter. I'll be reviewing rules with the other admins which, up until now, we've managed to do without, to ensure no-one feels victimised and at the same time hold members accountable for the their actions.

To quote Gary, who was the main participant in the argument with Peter.


My point with regard to Christians being given some leeway was with respect to the debate in churches. Most Christians are ignorant of any aspect of science. Heck, even a majority of the public haven't a clue. Ask anyone what the KT boundary is and they'll look and you as if you've two heads on. Ask how we came to know the Earth wasn't 6,000 years and they simply haven't a clue. As for the significance of Siccar point and it's implications for the age of the Earth, how many people have even heard of it or James Hutton ? So when YECs like Ken Ham come along with an answer to death and suffering, or Terry Mortenson with a talk "millions of years where did the idea come from" many Christians find them far more plausible than Brian Cox talking about the wonders of the universe, or David Attenborough explaining the evidence for first life.

This is the leeway I was talking about. When engaging with YECs this is the starting point, not proving the existence or non existence of God (which is irrelevant).

But no, this wasn't good enough for Sparks (if that's his real name). He then started a tirade of what I consider nothing more than abuse about Christianity in general. I simply raised a few points about Atheists celebrating Christmas, along with Church weddings and funerals. I think those are perfectly legitimate. If Atheists are going to be consistent , then Christmas should be just another day, they shouldn't be telling their kids about Santa, and their daughters should definitely not be having church weddings . Why take such offence at those points Colin ?

Michael and I have put up with almost daily jibing and rude comments about Christianity in general, so why do some Atheists get so irate when their position is criticised ?

The fact of the matter is that in the broader sense, most people simply don't care one way or another. Which is why most people who call themselves Atheists celebrate Christmas, tell their kids about Santa, and are infatuated by royal weddings in Westminster Abbey.

I was once told by an ex president of the Methodist Church in Ireland that Agnosticism was the predominant world view, even within the church. I woukl imagine this is still very much the case.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:17 pm

Am I the only one having problems accessing Facebook today ? Is it me or is it Facebook ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:59 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Am I the only one having problems accessing Facebook today ? Is it me or is it Facebook ?
I was able to look at the Causeway stuff a couple of times without difficulty.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:08 pm

cathy wrote:I'm not sure what went on on the Facebook page as I'm not a member and can't access
I've no wish to get involved with Facebook, especially with its dire attitude towards privacy and as I'm no longer a Bright Young Thing I can do without it. However, I do want to look up the occasional thing there so I've signed up under a pseudonym and treat it as read-only.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby cathy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:13 pm

I've no wish to get involved with Facebook, especially with its dire attitude towards privacy and as I'm no longer a Bright Young Thing I can do without it. However, I do want to look up the occasional thing there so I've signed up under a pseudonym and treat it as read-only.

The kids are nagging me and have told me I can set it up with nothing on it at all, just to see what everyone else is doing (and play scrabble) with maximum privacy settings. If there is a bar on tagging things to me I'll join. I fear I'll have to eventually as so much, like the causeway page and stuff the creationists are doing, require an account.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:58 pm

cathy wrote:
I've no wish to get involved with Facebook, especially with its dire attitude towards privacy and as I'm no longer a Bright Young Thing I can do without it. However, I do want to look up the occasional thing there so I've signed up under a pseudonym and treat it as read-only.

The kids are nagging me and have told me I can set it up with nothing on it at all, just to see what everyone else is doing (and play scrabble) with maximum privacy settings. If there is a bar on tagging things to me I'll join. I fear I'll have to eventually as so much, like the causeway page and stuff the creationists are doing, require an account.


Well, everything back to normal again (couldn't access this forum for several hours)

I find it useful for information Cathy/Brian, and for keeping up with some family members etc. There are also some good discussion groups as well, though it does tend to clog up my e-mail inboxes. I also follow a number of well known players on the US scene. Don Prothero, Joe Meart, Gary Hurd, and many others, as well as a number of YECs (I've been banned from most of them). Always good to see what rubbish Cowboy Bob's posting and no, I am not a YEC because I like Ken Ham's page.

I also enjoy following some of the local political commentators and local radio personalities here, which is great fun.

Facebook's a useful resource, and the creation/evolution this isn't the only topic I follow. I'm interested in our community radio station, Chaine FM (which is why I have so many friends from around Larne), Hifi, amateur radio, astronomy, etc.

Still, when discussion threads starts to become abusive I just delete them.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:02 pm

P.S. If your kids join it might be a good idea to join as well Cathy. If nothing else just to keep an eye on what they're up to
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:03 pm

Now that I can access this forum Facebook's disappeared again.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:07 pm

Might be something to do with BT infinity as rebooting the router seems to resolve cvertain issues.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby PJFloyd » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:24 pm

My use of the words 'their' and 'us' are simply how the English language works. It should be pretty clear from the context of the conversation who I was referring to. The group is of course open to anyone, YECs, Christian evolutionists and atheists. Where such groups gather there is bound to be heated debate and that is a good thing. Inevitably the conversation will turn to religion vs atheism and most people enjoy a good debate. But, and I really am trying to be as objective as possible here, Peter Henderson came off the worse in the recent debate. He blatantly avoided questions which is very frustrating and indicates a weak position.

Peter, I would most definitely like to see you come back to the group and you are more than welcome BUT if the conversation turns to a topic you don't like that's just something you would have to deal with. It has also been posited that you may be experiencing a crisis of faith, if that is so I know how difficult it is. Actually I'll tell you straight, my Saudi Arabia line of questioning is designed to cause maximum cognitive dissonance which is the reason you are unable to give a straight answer to it.
PJFloyd
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:02 am

Re: Give it up, McIntosh

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:14 pm

PJFloyd wrote: Actually I'll tell you straight, my Saudi Arabia line of questioning is designed to cause maximum cognitive dissonance
Saudi Arabia? The mind boggles - Finn MacCool must have been one hell of a thrower! (A visitor there told me they had to take a ridiculously short flight because they weren't allowed to drive over a certain causeway. Maybe the stones are getting a bit wobbly now?)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron