News from the Melbourne Conference

[macdoc]

sorry if dup - anyone following PZ Myers on the convention and coverage

this is precious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _media.php

[maiforpeace]

sorry if dup - anyone following PZ Myers on the convention and coverage

this is precious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _media.php

PZ's reaction is the same one I had to the media about the Oz convention. I did expect a less negative response from the Oz media.

[Spiritual Not Religious]

sorry if dup - anyone following PZ Myers on the convention and coverage

this is precious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _media.php

PZ's reaction is the same one I had to the media about the Oz convention. I did expect a less negative response from the Oz media.

Maybe there is some justification in the media's critiques? "Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. "OK, I'll speak really slowly." (Wild applause after each.)"

That isn't ridiculing somebody's belief, it is ridiculing the intelligence of the majority of the people on earth. And some of those people's intelligence would dance circles around some of the speakers at the convention.

That is why somebody such as Barney Zwartz whom PZ quoted, "Here's my advice. If atheists can reduce their contempt for believers and work harder for their positive goal -- reducing the footprint of religion in society -- they may begin to exert more of the influence they feel they deserve." is right. And PZ comes off as a whiner when he replies to that criticism with "OK, Barney. Here's my advice for you: put away the writing career, join a monastery, and pray, pray, pray. It will advance your cause!"

And then he ranted about Barney and why he wouldn't take advice from him. And that is where PZ fails because PZ isn't showing that he cares about listening to someone with a different opinion. Rather PZ simply is showing that he has a biased opinion about this person and thus nothing this person could be saying could possibly make sense. And a comeback of joining a monastery? Come on, that's as dumb as it gets.

I read quite a bit of the feedback on that blog and there are atheists criticizing some of the speakers also. Maybe there is a need to laugh and learn? Laughing is no problem at this forum of course

[macdoc]

I'm with PZ on this front...
It reminds me of the same " call for respect" the deniers of climate change try to garner.....

at some point you call foolish belief in sky daddies for what it is....

there is a limit to tolerance of ignorance in adult h sapiens....
especially when they want to promulgate the ignorance to the next generation...

[JimC]

sorry if dup - anyone following PZ Myers on the convention and coverage

this is precious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _media.php

PZ's reaction is the same one I had to the media about the Oz convention. I did expect a less negative response from the Oz media.

Maybe there is some justification in the media's critiques? "Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. "OK, I'll speak really slowly." (Wild applause after each.)"

That isn't ridiculing somebody's belief, it is ridiculing the intelligence of the majority of the people on earth. And some of those people's intelligence would dance circles around some of the speakers at the convention.

That is why somebody such as Barney Zwartz whom PZ quoted, "Here's my advice. If atheists can reduce their contempt for believers and work harder for their positive goal -- reducing the footprint of religion in society -- they may begin to exert more of the influence they feel they deserve." is right. And PZ comes off as a whiner when he replies to that criticism with "OK, Barney. Here's my advice for you: put away the writing career, join a monastery, and pray, pray, pray. It will advance your cause!"

And then he ranted about Barney and why he wouldn't take advice from him. And that is where PZ fails because PZ isn't showing that he cares about listening to someone with a different opinion. Rather PZ simply is showing that he has a biased opinion about this person and thus nothing this person could be saying could possibly make sense. And a comeback of joining a monastery? Come on, that's as dumb as it gets.

I read quite a bit of the feedback on that blog and there are atheists criticizing some of the speakers also. Maybe there is a need to laugh and learn? Laughing is no problem at this forum of course

To a fair extent, I agree with you, mainly because these sort of comments are not good PR for atheism. They leave most readers with an impression that the speaker is being little more than a smirking smart-arse, which is a great pity, since the rest of the valuable message gets lost. Of course, the media does pick these things out carefully... However, for a religious person (Barney is a liberal christian, BTW...), his article retained a reasonable balance, it wasn't criticism of the ideas, just of the misguided delivery.

I'm with PZ on this front...
It reminds me of the same " call for respect" the deniers of climate change try to garner.....

at some point you call foolish belief in sky daddies for what it is....

there is a limit to tolerance of ignorance in adult h sapiens....
especially when they want to promulgate the ignorance to the next generation...

Certainly you need to call a spade a spade, but how you do it depends on context, situation, audience and purpose. On this forum, for example, I can be a sarky old bastard about god-botherers with the best of them. However, in a formal, public debate, for example, my ideas would not change, but the packaging certainly would...

And I would not risk alienating the undecided with smart-arsed jokes about the opposition.

[Spiritual Not Religious]

I'm with PZ on this front...
It reminds me of the same " call for respect" the deniers of climate change try to garner.....

at some point you call foolish belief in sky daddies for what it is....

there is a limit to tolerance of ignorance in adult h sapiens....
especially when they want to promulgate the ignorance to the next generation...

That would be fine if that concept was brought into the talks. Jim has it right, there is a time and place for snarky and a time for diplomacy. With a conference such as this, speaking for what you want such as more rationality, thanking the theists who support secular laws, separation of church and state and humanistic ideas, that would have theists praising, not negating the conferences.

Just as you don't want to give respect to people who believe in something without evidence, those articles aren't giving respect for a group of people who claim to be rational but can't resist knee jerk put downs of another group of people. If the speakers are rational, why would they lie? Because to suggest that somebody is ignorant in all ways because of one area of thinking is a lie, is irrational.

If PZ wants support, it is time that support of similar causes becomes the topics not the same ol same ol generalizations about theists.

[Spiritual Not Religious]

To a fair extent, I agree with you, mainly because these sort of comments are not good PR for atheism. They leave most readers with an impression that the speaker is being little more than a smirking smart-arse, which is a great pity, since the rest of the valuable message gets lost. Of course, the media does pick these things out carefully... However, for a religious person (Barney is a liberal christian, BTW...), his article retained a reasonable balance, it wasn't criticism of the ideas, just of the misguided delivery.

I agree that the media is mining but if the statements weren't there to mine, then the reviews would have to reflect that.

The Barney guy seemed very reasonable, thus it makes PZ's point that much more of a whine.

Australia has always been discussed as a very liberal country for atheists by the members of the RD forum, past. I've read where if someone in politics brought religion in, they would be hooted out. To get such low reviews might indicate that the atheists in Australia don't buy into what was presented and it just might be worth it for PZ to reassess the criticisms.