Strategy

[Roger Stanyard]

This also cuts the creationists legs out from under them if they argue that science rules god out a priori.

Hope this helps. [/quote]

That's a good read, if a little heavy for a layman like me

However I wouldn't have said it was a piece specifically refuting NOMA though, which is what I was getting at - but then I suppose it'd be easy to wander away from the subject of creationism/ID which is what you focus on, obviously. I'm just wondering if you're missing an opportunity to get more traffic to and awareness of the BCSE by getting the well known debaters of the issues to supply something for your site. But then in the other thread someone mentioned you had tried to contact Jerry Coyne with no response, so maybe you are trying that. Getting a Dawkins, Harris or the like to supply a piece for your site would be a good move I'd have thought.

Also from a personal p.o.v., I don't really like that you have a piece on the site saying "Religion is responsible for humanity's moral and spiritual guidance" without something to counter such total rubbish [/quote]

Agreed Neil; it's the usual problem, lack of resources. I would love to see contributions from the clever debaters but the top end basically want payment and the New Atheists have their own causes and battles to fight. We could do it ourselves but we're overstretched as it is with fighting the British creationist movement - submissions on the national curriculum, lobbying, petitions to name just a few activities of recent. Don't forget, we all have outside jobs and lives.

Believe you me, I have tried to get people on RD's forum to join the BCSE. With a few exceptions, they are not, and never have been, interested.

The BCSE is not my first attempt at setting up a voluntary organisation (I've had a past success, btw). My rule of thumb is that only about 6% of members of such organisations actually do any work for them or the cause. As you might guess, our problem really isn't cash resources, it's a lack of sufficient and substantive enthusiasm in the UK for fighting the anti-creationist cause. We've been looking at strategy, such ideas as having regional representatives for example. We've talked to the NCSE about such matters and have a couple of American Anti-creationists to meet up with in August which will provide some further input.

I suspect what we really need is a big pow wow amongst potential interested parties. It'll cost a bit but so be it.

[Peter Henderson]

Believe you me, I have tried to get people on RD's forum to join the BCSE. With a few exceptions, they are not, and never have been, interested

.

They only appear to be interested in misrepresnting you Roger. I normally get this kind of thing of Premier, not here:

Just google "Dawkins believes in aliens" and you find where the story originated. Dawkins explains it himself in this interview.

Can't believe I've seen it repeated here, extraordinary

No doubt it was rife on RDF when it was on the go.

[cathy]

I would love to see contributions from the clever debaters but the top end basically want payment and the New Atheists have their own causes and battles to fight. We could do it ourselves but we're overstretched as it is with fighting the British creationist movement - submissions on the national curriculum, lobbying, petitions to name just a few activities of recent. Don't forget, we all have outside jobs and lives.

Like who? Who are the clever debaters then, Jerry can't be bothered to do a simple google search Coyne? BCSE have got some really good people when they aren't tied up with work etc. And at least bcse gathers actual information. How many reports on creationist talks have you seen new atheist forums. Who actually put the national curriculum review details on there? Who told them about everyday champions church? Who fought for Laura Homer in the Exeter newspaper.

And I wouldn't expect them to know the difference between state schools, free schools and academies but i'd expect them to understand once it's pointed out but they don't. Same with nat curriculum science exams etc. In fact how much stuff have you actually seen that hasn't been checked on them?

And this site is currently female friendly as well.

[psiloiordinary]

Neil,

The biggest barrier we have is apathy.

Most academics see this as beneath them and whilst they are happy to say well folks crack on but are too busy to do anything at all. We are trying to drum up support through the SiTP and the Humanist Groups but again most folks see this as not their fight, they would rather fight alternative medicine or religion in general - the end result is nil support.

This was partly what was winding me up about the influx of new commentators criticising us (without checking their facts first) and not having contributed anything to this particular battle before hand.

Purely a personal emotional reaction but then I am an evolved mammal and so subject to such.

[Roger Stanyard]

I would love to see contributions from the clever debaters but the top end basically want payment and the New Atheists have their own causes and battles to fight. We could do it ourselves but we're overstretched as it is with fighting the British creationist movement - submissions on the national curriculum, lobbying, petitions to name just a few activities of recent. Don't forget, we all have outside jobs and lives.

Like who? Who are the clever debaters then, Jerry can't be bothered to do a simple google search Coyne? BCSE have got some really good people when they aren't tied up with work etc. And at least bcse gathers actual information. How many reports on creationist talks have you seen new atheist forums. Who actually put the national curriculum review details on there? Who told them about everyday champions church? Who fought for Laura Homer in the Exeter newspaper.

And I wouldn't expect them to know the difference between state schools, free schools and academies but i'd expect them to understand once it's pointed out but they don't. Same with nat curriculum science exams etc. In fact how much stuff have you actually seen that hasn't been checked on them?

And this site is currently female friendly as well.

The top end of the New Atheist movement are Messrs Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. They've all, it appears, made a lot of money out of the New Atheist movement (I don't begrudge them over that). However, it appears few others with high profiles are willing to have anything to do with the anti-creationist movement despite all the talk. There are exceptions like Lewis Wolpert and Steve Jones does his bit from time to time.

[Neil Davies]

Hmm, well there's more people out there that could provide a decent hit of web traffic that just those monstrous new atheists - what about high profile skeptics like Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, et al? Robin Ince used to do a whole comedy routine on creationists. If you could get Stephen Fry to retweet something you'd be hitting millions Twitter is 'it' these days. Well known TV science bods like Brian Cox, Adam Rutherford, Jim Al-Khalili and Marcus DuSautoy are all over Twitter. A simple request for a retweet to them takes seconds and you never know, they might go for it.

[Roger Stanyard]

Hmm, well there's more people out there that could provide a decent hit of web traffic that just those monstrous new atheists - what about high profile skeptics like Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, et al? Robin Ince used to do a whole comedy routine on creationists. If you could get Stephen Fry to retweet something you'd be hitting millions Twitter is 'it' these days. Well known TV science bods like Brian Cox, Adam Rutherford, Jim Al-Khalili and Marcus DuSautoy are all over Twitter. A simple request for a retweet to them takes seconds and you never know, they might go for it.

Thanks for those tips. We'll follow up.

[a_haworthroberts]

Has this been mentioned in any of the recent very active threads?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... -campaigns

[cathy]

I'd imagine if you go to somewhere like the Dawkins website they'll be Pages of them a foaming at the mouth a ranking him somewhere below bin laden.

Thanks for those tips. We'll follow up.

Yes cos those people have a broad general appeal rather than the group you mentioned (Dennett, Hitchens Dawkins etc) who are virtually unknown outside of very narrow group of people with a very narrow focus (and if dannyno is anything to go by-sometimes very narrow minds)

Agreed Neil; it's the usual problem, lack of resources. I would love to see contributions from the clever debaters but the top end basically want payment and the New Atheists have their own causes and battles to fight. We could do it ourselves but we're overstretched as it is with fighting the British creationist movement - submissions on the national curriculum, lobbying, petitions to name just a few activities of recent. Don't forget, we all have outside jobs and lives.

Believe you me, I have tried to get people on RD's forum to join the BCSE. With a few exceptions, they are not, and never have been, interested.

This comment is still rankling with me after all that has gone on. NA are just a group of people. Judging by some of their comments (alienating natural allies etc) they probably way overestimate their own importance and reach so why should bcse pander to them in anyway. In my opinion more natural and useful allies would be found on places like mumsnet or NCT or all the schools appeals networks etc, people who actually would have the skills, contacts and interest in education to actually be of some use. People with as narrow minded as dannyno (and I know he doesn't represent them but he has been their public face) have already proved that they are far to focused on irrelevant trivialities to be of use (and his use of terms like atheistic evolution suggest very little understandings of the clear definitions of science).

In fact that comment has really p@@@@@ me off. Suggesting getting a few NA on board would improve things. So as I'm not a NA and therefore worthless I'm off to calm down for a while. May I say before I go that ALL of the people I've encountered on this forum, with the exception of marc surtees and dannyno (who if you blocked out the words creationism/ID and new atheist Dawkins would be indistinguishable) have been informed, interesting and intelligent and I've learnt loads.

[Neil Davies]

Cathy, you really need to step back and stop assuming the worst possible interpretation of things. Really. You're not the only one (I include myself), and it's clear to me now that there is now so much prejudice stuck to the 'new atheist' and 'accommodationist' labels that they are becoming damaging to any kind of discussion. dannyno made consistent, detailed and illuminating arguments each time he posted, which I found very interesting.

Constant and false accusations of narrow-mindedness get really tedious. I'm tempted to just not bother posting here any more for that reason. It's too frustrating and a complete waste of my time.

In fact that comment has really p@@@@@ me off. Suggesting getting a few NA on board would improve things. So as I'm not a NA and therefore worthless I'm off to calm down for a while.

Surely you see how my suggesting taking a political decision to get some input from famous 'new atheists' doesn't for one second suggest that you or anyone else who isn't a 'new atheist' is worthless. I'm just as certain that Roger referring to 'clever debaters' was not saying that everyone else isn't 'clever' by his measure. That is just a plain ridiculous interpretation of what we've said. My suggested was simple, that considering you court help from religious people who may not hold every self-same opinion you do, why not do the same with 'new atheists' who get huge amounts of web traffic that could be useful to tap. That's it.

[Roger Stanyard]

Has this been mentioned in any of the recent very active threads?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... -campaigns

We posted it up on our blog. Other reports we didn't cover included one from Nick Cohen in the Observer - he was highly critical of Rees and Templeton money.

I must say that Rees is one of a growing band of critics of the New Atheists. Others include Chris Hedges who, as far as I know, has not received Templeton money. Hedges has argued that the New Atheists are basically no different from the religious fundamentalists (a position also taken by Lenny Flank). Given that Hedges has also argued that the US religious fundamentalists are basically proto-fascists (see his book Christian Fascists), that's saying something very hard indeed. I suspect that any disinterested party looking at some of the New Atheist blog postings might well come to the same conclusion as well.

[Neil Davies]

I must say that Rees is one of a growing band of critics of the New Atheists. Others include Chris Hedges who, as far as I know, has not received Templeton money. Hedges has argued that the New Atheists are basically no different from the religious fundamentalists (a position also taken by Lenny Flank). Given that Hedges has also argued that the US religious fundamentalists are basically proto-fascists (see his book Christian Fascists), that's saying something very hard indeed. I suspect that any disinterested party looking at some of the New Atheist blog postings might well come to the same conclusion as well.

Well that has made my mind up for me - I'll not be wasting any more time discussing things here

[Michael]

I must say that Rees is one of a growing band of critics of the New Atheists. Others include Chris Hedges who, as far as I know, has not received Templeton money. Hedges has argued that the New Atheists are basically no different from the religious fundamentalists (a position also taken by Lenny Flank). Given that Hedges has also argued that the US religious fundamentalists are basically proto-fascists (see his book Christian Fascists), that's saying something very hard indeed. I suspect that any disinterested party looking at some of the New Atheist blog postings might well come to the same conclusion as well.

Well that has made my mind up for me - I'll not be wasting any more time discussing things here

If you want to bash ALL religion then go ahead. However you will get nowhere in preventing the rise of crdationism in all levels of society especially education as many , especially beleivers of one kind or another, will reject all you stand for. You will in fact make them more sympathetic to creationism as I requently observe and experience

[Peter Henderson]

I must say that Rees is one of a growing band of critics of the New Atheists. Others include Chris Hedges who, as far as I know, has not received Templeton money. Hedges has argued that the New Atheists are basically no different from the religious fundamentalists (a position also taken by Lenny Flank). Given that Hedges has also argued that the US religious fundamentalists are basically proto-fascists (see his book Christian Fascists), that's saying something very hard indeed. I suspect that any disinterested party looking at some of the New Atheist blog postings might well come to the same conclusion as well.

Well that has made my mind up for me - I'll not be wasting any more time discussing things here

Neil, I thought we had sort of made up ?

Michael's correct. Dawkin's strategy won't work, and there are many, many scientiists of religious faith (not just Christians). Surely we can agree to differ on this and leave the religious debate for another day ? I mean, this really is all about what is and isn't science. Religious beliefs are irrelevent here.

Anyway, I've things till do today. The grass needs cutting before the rain starts and I've forms to fill in so I'll see you later.

[Roger Stanyard]

I must say that Rees is one of a growing band of critics of the New Atheists. Others include Chris Hedges who, as far as I know, has not received Templeton money. Hedges has argued that the New Atheists are basically no different from the religious fundamentalists (a position also taken by Lenny Flank). Given that Hedges has also argued that the US religious fundamentalists are basically proto-fascists (see his book Christian Fascists), that's saying something very hard indeed. I suspect that any disinterested party looking at some of the New Atheist blog postings might well come to the same conclusion as well.

Well that has made my mind up for me - I'll not be wasting any more time discussing things here

Good grief!

And the New Atheists who recently joined this forum complain about us "not listening".

Bye