Godless Apostate

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd still rather watch the NFL on Sundays.

Get together to sing and listen to a TED talk? I'd totally go.

EDIT: Thinking more about it, I like the idea. The one thing I do miss about church is the socialization, especially as a family.

[troutman]

There is a humanist group that meets every Sunday for brunch at the Pelican Pier.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

There is a humanist group that meets every Sunday for brunch at the Pelican Pier.

That's all well and good, but how much singing do you do?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's all well and good, but how much singing do you do?

I've never made it out for that, and I'm sure no one wants to hear me sing.

I've never made it out to Skeptics in the Pub either:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/27658914163/

On the first Tuesday of every month, we'll be meeting at a pub in Calgary at around 7:00 for drinks, discussion, and debate about all science and skeptical topics.

[Textcritic]

^
That honestly sounds super fun.

[WhiteTiger]

[troutman]

FYI - I don't endorse this. CFI has always seemed too militant to me.

https://www.facebook.com/events/2595...y_type=regular

CFI Calgary's first Atheist Billboard goes up this week and the Media will be reporting on our billboard this Friday at 3 PM. We are looking for people to join us at this media event for photo ops, or simply to come by and celebrate this latest milestone in our community.

The Billboard is located on the south side of 3603A Edmonton Trail NE.

Following this, we will move to Gallaghers Pub located at the Northeast corner of Edmonton Trail and McKnight Blvd (5010 4th Street NE) to continue the celebration. If you cannot make the photo op, please join us here.

About the billboard:
The Calgary ad features a young woman at her computer with the caption “Jenn 13:1 - Praying won’t help. Doing will. Without God. We’re all good.”

[Thor]

Why do you find them militant, ack I hate that word when describing people that don't believe.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Thor

Why do you find them militant, ack I hate that word when describing people that don't believe.

I was part of a Humanist group in Calgary - CFI tried to merge with it, and they were very confrontational. I didn't think they were winning any fans with their approach. They seemed to be just as "fundamentalist" as the groups they were attacking. Too much tilting at windmills.

[Devils'Advocate]

Mmmm... I guess it's what are our end goal? Is it where there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion? Or is it where we toss religion overboard and the vast majority of people do not believe in any organized religion?

When I see my friend the United Church minister doing so much good for his community, I'm the former and would get peeved with the tactics of CFI. When I see Prop 8 defeated in California, those days I'm with the "militants".

[photon]

Yeah a little of column A and a little of column B. But I think column B can (or should) only be accomplished through education and stuff like discussing epistemology.

I think a billboard like that can serve a different purpose other than being a tool in the overall discussion about the role of religion in society; the idea that marginalizing someone for non-belief is still common/acceptable enough that being more vocal about non-belief being a normal thing is worth the natural aversion I have to it.

[Thor]

I know a Canadian Icelandic Unitarian minister, utterly awesome guy who regularly posts support for gay rights and is one of the funniest guys around, just genuinely a terrific person. I have little problem with people like that, its the fundies I lock horns with.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Mmmm... I guess it's what are our end goal? Is it where there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion? Or is it where we toss religion overboard and the vast majority of people do not believe in any organized religion?

The former is the goal. The latter will be the likely result of continued education and scientific discovery. Will there be religious people? Always, you'll never get rid of religion entirely.

But if we could treat religion the same way we treat the suggestion that Elvis is still alive, that would be greaaaaaaat.

[troutman]

[troutman]

Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...edium=facebook

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, it's evolution vs. creationism when Bill Nye "the science guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., debate onstage (and live online, for free).

[photon]

Ugh, don't like the idea at all. I kind of agree with the view that debates imply legitimacy (who would take a debate about geocentric vs. heliocentric seriously?), plus debates settle nothing and are the worst venue to discover and communicate truth. Rhetorical skill wins. And finally it's far easier to "win" a debate when you can fight rigorous knowledge with making-stuff-up. As much as I like Bill Nye, he's going to get crushed.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...edium=facebook

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, it's evolution vs. creationism when Bill Nye "the science guy" and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., debate onstage (and live online, for free).

It's such a stupid move for Bill Nye to participate in this. He's not going to win over any creationists using arguments of logic, rationality, and reason, so he shouldn't have even dignified Ken Ham by agreeing to the debate. The only winning move is not to play.

[Edit]
Beaten by photon who made the same point as I was typing this.

[troutman]

Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-creationists

Nye has been criticized for agreeing to this debate. What Nye is doing gives creationists "the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science", according to Richard Dawkins. Ham is relishing the opportunity to misinform the public and pretend that real scientists take his work seriously.

Unfortunately, with or without the Nye debate, much of the American population already sees creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. There isn't a single legitimate research lab in the country studying biblical creation or Noah's flood, but creationism is still influencing public policy and is still being taught in public school science classes.

According to Gallup, nearly half of the country rejects evolution. Forty-Six percent of Americans believe humans were created in their present form, by God, in the last 10,000 years. Over the past 30 years, belief in creationism has remained relatively stable, despite creationism's repeated court losses.

That's why Nye agreed to this debate, he wants to raise awareness that "this belief [in creationism] is still among us" and it is a political issue that cannot be ignored. Creationism still "finds its way onto school boards in the United States".

In September, I heard Nye speak and he explained that he had spoken out because he had a moral responsibility to oppose the teaching of creationism. He's said creationism is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and miseducating a generation of students by teaching creationism will harm our country because "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future".

Nye is doing his part by raising awareness of the issue, but as citizens, we all have a moral responsibility to speak out and make sure the next generation of students is scientifically literate. We can do that by fighting back against policy that would allow creationism into public school science classes.

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Should scientists bother debating creationists?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...tionists-video

Anthropologist and science blogger Greg Laden agrees.

"I think Bill Nye is great, but I think he’s making a mistake," Dr. Laden writes in his blog. "First, Bill Nye is not really an expert on evolution and is actually not that experienced in debates. Being really really pro science and science education isn’t enough."

Bill Nye wastes his time debating creationists

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...ationists.html

The irony of debates like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham is that they pit two fundamentalist readers against each other. The fundamentalist Christian and the atheist both read the Bible as a series of falsifiable propositions — what Terry Eagleton calls the “Yeti” theory of belief. Disproving the creation narrative should strike any theologian as absurd — the way a literature professor would react if a student claimed to have “disproven” “Sons and Lovers.”

Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we. He should therefore ally himself with sane religious leaders, rather than debate fundamentalists.

[Thor]

What's the link for this debate

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Thor

What's the link for this debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgv...&feature=share