This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Protests no concern for outspoken atheist - Comments

the way's Avatar Comment 1 by the way

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

Unbalanced being the operative word.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:54:00 UTC | #147143

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 2 by Cartomancer

Well of course there's an unbalanced debate. But that's not exactly our fault is it? When you crazy creationists come up with some evidence, or anything even remotely resembling a decent argument, the debate might be a tad more balanced eh? We'd gladly give it to you if we could think of one, but sadly for you we can't make your position sound any more credible either...

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:56:00 UTC | #147145

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 3 by Steve Zara

Am I missing something? Is the Free Church creationist? Does that mean that David Robertson is one of the saner ones, trying to drag them into the 19th century?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:59:00 UTC | #147148

faouloki's Avatar Comment 4 by faouloki

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.


I find it odd whenever I hear that religious people feel there is unbalanced debate when it comes to issues such as evolution.

Aside from the fact that Professor Dawkins has and continues to take part in debates with religious figures, and that there is always a right to reply, be it through the press, online or in Churches etc. There have also been thousands of years of persecution against people who go against the accepted religion of those in power; be it through believing in a different religion or by having no religion at all. Maybe they would prefer it if we were all silenced, like we would have been in the good old days?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:59:00 UTC | #147149

Ygern's Avatar Comment 5 by Ygern

To my mind the real debate is between science and 'rational' Christians - whether one can really reconcile the two or whether the one flat out disproves the other.

Creationism is just a gibbering idiot frothing on the sidelines, it doesn't really belong in this debate at all.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:00:00 UTC | #147150

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 6 by Steve Zara

Creationism is just a gibbering idiot frothing on the sidelines, it doesn't really belong in this debate at all.


The problem is that it is a rather large and menacing idiot.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:01:00 UTC | #147151

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 7 by Bonzai

So Robertson turns out to be a creationist?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:03:00 UTC | #147154

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 8 by Quetzalcoatl

I hope there is going to be a fuller summary of the event than this.

Anyway-

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution


Yes there is. It's due to the overwhelming mountain of evidence against creationism. All we need is some creationist evidence to make the debate more balanced.

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:04:00 UTC | #147155

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 9 by Steve Zara

Bonzai-
It's starting to look like that!

Quetz-
I am surprised that Robertson made anything clear. Also, can we trust what he says?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:05:00 UTC | #147156

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 10 by Cartomancer

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man who will use, abuse or distort anything he can lay his sweaty hands on in order to make himself feel important and worthwhile. I really don't think it matters to him what is actually true or not, just whether he can use it to score points in his own crazy little game of self-aggrandisement.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:06:00 UTC | #147157

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 12 by Steve Zara

Comment #154957 by Cartomancer

OK, that sounds like a reasonable summary of Robertson to me. However, the idea of the FCOS supporting creationism in any way is fascinating.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:09:00 UTC | #147161

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 11 by Bonzai

Well while atheists "come out", Robertson was outed as a creationist. Got to ask him next time..

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:09:00 UTC | #147160

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 13 by scottishgeologist

Interesting take on all this here:

"A Date with Dawkins"

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=110603

Note the names of some of the protestors in this article:

Donald Boyd: Used to be a pastor in the hyper fundy Free Presbyterian Church. Done for adultery. No longer a minister in said church

Sandy Shaw. Charismaniac nutter (apologies - tautology there) Stood as a candidate for the homophobic "Scottish Christian party" in last years Holyrood elections.

Notice also, the comments that folow the article - before the feedback even gets started they are arguing over bible versions.

Irate Atheist, please supply the verdict!!!!

:-)
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:10:00 UTC | #147162

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 14 by Quetzalcoatl

Steve-

I'll qualify my statement. He made it clear that he's not a YEC. He could believe that humanity was specially created. He did mention Adam & Eve in his talk, but never elaborated. I think he was honest about not being a YEC.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:10:00 UTC | #147163

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 15 by scottishgeologist

Steve.

One thing that can be said about David is that he is not YEC. Maybe OEC but not YEC

If he were YEC, it would bring him into the uber-fundy camp which he knows is lethal.

He's trying to pitch a "cool calvinism" a la Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Or else Tim Keller and Redeemer Church in NYC

If you want to find the theological position he occupies, these guys are probably the closest.

Of course, others in his church may have other ideas......

SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:14:00 UTC | #147168

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 16 by Bonzai

If Robertson is not a creationist, then it is even more unethical for him to join the creationist chorus to demand "balance", because he is asking for equal time for what even he himself considers lies.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:15:00 UTC | #147169

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Zara

Comment #154963 by Quetzalcoatl

I wonder if he really knows what he believes, or if he changes chamaeleon-like to suit his audience.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:19:00 UTC | #147172

Hobbit's Avatar Comment 18 by Hobbit

Comment #154955 by Quetzalcoatl

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.


Hang on, they want a balanced debate when they can't even decide amongst themselves what their position is.

Give me a break!

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:23:00 UTC | #147177

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 19 by scottishgeologist

And just to keep to the Pythonesque theme of this sorry business, Derick Gilliesd is NOT Free Church . He is actually a member of the "Free Church (Continuing)"

The FC(C) is a breakaway church from the FC. They broke away in 2000 over numerous issues, main one of which was the FC's failure to deal properly with allegations of adultery against a FC College professor

You cant make this stuff up. You honestly cant.

:-)
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:24:00 UTC | #147180

troyreynolds86's Avatar Comment 20 by troyreynolds86

This may only be my naive little brain being unable to ascend to higher thoughts, but to what extent are religious people ever not creationists to some extent?

Though some may shun the idea of people just being popped into existence in some garden paradise in exchange for a different mechanism of our development (evolution, for instance), is there really any major difference? A religionist who accepts our descent from other species does so with a keen devotion to the idea that some god micromanaging the entire process, pulling the intricate levers of selection pressure. How very different are the IDer of the irreducible complexity, the YEC and the evolutionary religionist really when we get to the heart of the matter?

Troy

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:27:00 UTC | #147181

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 21 by scottishgeologist

More comment from the local nverness newspaper here:

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5695/Dawkins_warns_of_human_extinction_.html

Heres an absolute cracker of a comment:

A protester who gave his name only as Kenny the Christian stood outside as people filed into the lecture.

The 62-year-old said he had travelled from Dornoch to tell people about God's love. "I am here motivated by the love for the people who are attending this meeting," he said.

"Secular fundamentalism is sweeping this nation and people are being deceived by the devil. The devil works through people.

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker and he has expressed this boldly. He believes in evolution, that nothing produces everything. But God produces everything."

(picks self up off floor after an amazingly sore ROFLMAO...)

:-))
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:31:00 UTC | #147184

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 22 by scottishgeologist

Hobbit

In the FCOS, you'll get the whole spectrum from YEC through OEC to Theistic Evolution.

And that is supposed to be a "conservative" church.

:-)
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:34:00 UTC | #147186

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 23 by Billy Sands

Why were these muppets not at the prayer meetings that prevented rev fanny baws to attend?

Isn't it great when Robertson's own fundies prove he is talking shit about christian tolerance - I know I shouldn't laugh at the pathetic, but fuck it!

Ha ha hahahahahahahahaahahahah


ha


Author of The God Delusion appears despite sore throat.


If he were a god botherer he would have prayed to his sky daddy about this. Being an atheist, he has no such retarded mentality about it and just gets on with it.
The idea that someone doesn't need an invisible friend to hold their hand must have Jesus spinning in his grave.

ha

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:36:00 UTC | #147187

Duff's Avatar Comment 24 by Duff

This "unbalanced debate" silliness reminds me of something Bertrand Russell said: "Religion is just the traditionalists fighting in vain against new knowledge." It is an unbalanced debate all right, just not in the way the religionists envision it.

It must be debilitating for them to know they are always going to lose. Poor things.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:41:00 UTC | #147189

Ygern's Avatar Comment 26 by Ygern

The problem is that it is a rather large and menacing idiot.


I've never really seen them as menacing.

Tiresome in that no matter how badly they are trounced & disproven, they keep on coming back with the same old codswollop.
Problematic in that they insist on teaching lies to children.
Deceitful in that they have no intention of ever educating themselves.

Maybe my point of view is skewed by the fact that up until now Creationists are relatively thin on the ground on this particular side of the pond (Ireland).

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:43:00 UTC | #147191

Ichneumonid's Avatar Comment 25 by Ichneumonid

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.


This would have to be the funniest quote I've seen for quite a while! Atheists publish a handful of well-selling (I'm not even going to say 'best selling' - Rick Warren's christian apologist book "The purpose driven life" alone has outsold TGD by about 20-fold) books over a span of 3 or 4 years and suddenly the 'debate' becomes unbalanced? Haven't we just endured 2,000 years of a virtual monopoly by the Christian Churches in the West over people's thoughts, behaviours, and moral and ethical standards and they have the gall to say now that they're not getting a fair go!? You must be effing joking!! Unhinged would be a better description of Derick's statement, I would have thought...

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:43:00 UTC | #147190

Freelance Scientist's Avatar Comment 28 by Freelance Scientist


Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

This still confuses me to this day. There seems to be the implication that creationism and evolution are two opposing beliefs ?

One is there to be either believed or not believed.

The other is there to be understood or not understood.

Amazingly evolution appears not to require belief, only understanding.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:47:00 UTC | #147194

Ichneumonid's Avatar Comment 29 by Ichneumonid

Oh, and why do there never seem to be 'outspoken Christianists' giving lectures? There do seem to be quite a few of them about the place you know!

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:48:00 UTC | #147195