• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Going to the Creation "Museum"

Towlie said:
I didn't characterize anything as disruptive. Why are you saying that? All I did was respond to the statement that "The excursion happened, there was no 'us vs. them' debacle and everything happened just fine." As the video proves, that's obviously false.
Click to expand...

debacle =

* Main Entry: de·ba·cle * Pronunciation: \dē-ˈbä-kəl, di-, -ˈba-; ÷ˈde-bə-kəl\ * Variant(s): also dé·bâ·cle \also dā-ˈbäk(lə)\ * Function: noun * Etymology: French débâcle, from débâcler to clear, from Middle French desbacler, from des- de- + bacler to block, perhaps from Vulgar Latin *bacculare, from Latin baculum staff * Date: 1802 1 : a tumultuous breakup of ice in a river 2 : a violent disruption (as of an army) : rout 3 a : a great disaster b : a complete failure : fiasco
Click to expand...

Oh Towlie, Twolie, Twolie, you're being disingenious. I first post that the visit wasn't a debacle (100's killed, rioting, the end of the world, dogs and cats living together! etc.) Then you post a link to a video showing that one young man was thrown out for being "disruptive." And then you try to come back by saying "well it wasn't a debacle, but something happened (a very mild something BTW)." Why can't you admit the that "horde" was very well behaved (even by the CM's standards) and let it rest? And that atheists are just like everyone else and just a moral as the rest of the crew. (That's all we're asking - to be appreciated as individuals and not condemned.)
 
Towlie said:
I didn't characterize anything as disruptive. Why are you saying that? All I did was respond to the statement that "The excursion happened, there was no 'us vs. them' debacle and everything happened just fine." As the video proves, that's obviously false.
Click to expand...

Ack I shouldn't respond, but does one student in a classroom, raising their hand and saying "I don't agree!" amounts to a debacle? Are you serious?
 
supercorgi said:
There have been a number of polls in the U.S. that show that atheists are the most distrusted minority.
Click to expand...

...but none that say "this country distrusts and shuns atheists." That was where you were guilty of generalizing. Backpedal and rephrase all you like. I was addressing your original quote - which is not supported by your links. As of 1999 (per your link), it says 48% wouldn't vote for an atheist. That's less than half (the stat is also 10 years old). Hardly enough to constitute "this country," or even a majority for that matter. Hence my condescending link.

FYI you still tick me off
Click to expand...

Still your problem... but after that comment, I'm starting to like it.

Robster, who was in the thick of things, got only partial information (ever played "telephone?").
Click to expand...

Wow...you're not kidding. Okay, I'll explain again. :slp: I brought up a Creationist being removed because of this comment:

supercorgi said:
...based on the intolerance and belligerence of the museum's staff...
Click to expand...

I simply said that Robster claimed the museum's staff was friendly. Now you imply Robster was uninformed (even though he stayed after PZ left). I have read PZs blog. Nowhere did I read him say the staff was belligerent or intolerant. That was a generalization that YOU made up. I looked on PZs blog, and the writeup the museum did itself. Nobody seems to agree with you about their staff.
 
Okay, I'll point out a couple of inexcusable argumentative fallacies, then I'm done with this. I hope to avoid seeing this exchange removed by a moderator, so as far as I'm concerned, it's over.

supercorgi said:
... "debacle"?
Click to expand...
Straw man, selective reading. The group in the video are clearly unhappy and are not talking as if "everything happened just fine". The claim is false.

supercorgi said:
Hi Towlie, just to prevent more misunderstanding, could you tell me what religious-faction or non-religious faction you belong to. It would help with understanding.
Click to expand...
Translation: I wish to construct an ad hominem attack against you instead of addressing your assertions, but I require some personal information from you in order to do that. Please help.

Sorry, no I won't. Instead, please learn how to debate properly by confining yourself to the issues.
 
Well, from what I can see, observing this all from several thousand miles away, reading all of the reports, it looks as if the tension before the event was largely unwarranted.

I think that sometimes it can be difficult to imagine 300 random people united by a cause could do something en masse and not cause a riot, but I suspect it depends on the kind of people that you gather together. In my experience skeptics are often insufferable pedants, often rather weird, sometimes rather scary. I doubt if many of us have the desire or even the skills to create a scene :-)
 
Towlie said:
Perhaps not, but I'm asking you to reconsider a plan that I fear might partially undermine the respect that atheists are fighting for, and perhaps even result in some favorable publicity and sympathy for these Christian fundamentalists. I really don't think this scheme is likely to help our cause, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Click to expand...
What respect? Or do you mean the goal of ever getting any?

Not likely. Something akin to a self persecution complex is promoted by Christian fundies. It promotes group cohesion, them against us. Fundies enjoy the idea atheists are attacking Christians. They have no motive to see it differently.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
I've been to a (free) creationist museum. There are at least some points of interest. Admitedly they were mostly the result of morbid curiosity.
....
Click to expand...
That would be my motive. And maybe not even 'morbid' curiosity. I love visiting religious sites when I travel. I'd go to this museum purely out of curiosity even if I wasn't involved in skepticism.
 
skeptigirl said:
I take that to mean you don't want to ask any hard questions challenging an unsupportable belief like, "God is love"?
Click to expand...

Actually, I took it to mean that if you're going into the bear's den, don't poke him in the ass with a sharp stick and expect him to offer you tea and cakes.

There was no need to go in with an antagonistic attitude. Seems like the majority of the folk who went understood and adhered to this. <shrug>
 
skeptigirl said:
I take that to mean you don't want to ask any hard questions challenging an unsupportable belief like, "God is love"?
Click to expand...

Not in front of their children who can't understand why the crazy man is arguing with mommy and daddy, no.

I'll ask hard questions of adults outside of their churches without their children present, if they want to have a dialogue. My responses to the post you quote are to statements that are intended to be as obnoxious as possible.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I've been wondering how this would play in the Christian/Creationist media.

Christian Post article.

Ham's blog entry for Sat.
Click to expand...


Ham; he is lying, twisting the facts to present himself as the victim of the evil Creationist. That is, after all, part of his job description.
Chortle at the museum staff being called "Christ-like"; talk about arrogance.

The actual article from the Christian post was nice and factual.
 
Also, our security staff indicated that a mock communion service was held out front where crackers with cheese were served. Mocking the death and resurrection of our Lord like this is an extremely serious thing indeed. But they have to answer to the Lord for that.
Click to expand...

From Ham's entry.

Just throwing that out for a laugh but this caught my attention.

Some of the students had very good follow-up questions. Two or three attempted a counter-argument, but none were able to successfully refute The Ultimate Proof of Creation.
Click to expand...

This was said by a Dr. Lisle who was talking about this 'new' idea which comes from his new book. Have you guys heard of it or already discussed it? I'm interested to see if what the counter-arguments are.
 
Glockjaw said:
This was said by a Dr. Lisle who was talking about this 'new' idea which comes from his new book. Have you guys heard of it or already discussed it? I'm interested to see if what the counter-arguments are.
Click to expand...

It's on Amazon. Some of the customer reviews make mention of his arguments.
 
skeptigirl said:
There is such a concept as learning what other people believe and promote.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Of course, everything learned by spending money at that museum could have easily been learned by reading their website or others like it.

skeptigirl said:
I take that to mean you don't want to ask any hard questions challenging an unsupportable belief like, "God is love"?
Click to expand...

And yet so many people in this thread don't like the hard questions challenging a supposedly unsupportable belief like, "There's a time and a place for everything..."
O sweet irony. :rolleyes:

I just wonder why they apparently think this viewpoint is wrong:
Magnifico2.0 said:
I'll ask hard questions of adults outside of their churches without their children present, if they want to have a dialogue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That's the one.


And a pretty useless article, I'd think. She didn't even mention why the 'Hamite theory' is justifiably racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom