The 2010 Global Atheist Convention will be held in Melbourne, Australia, at the prestigious Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, over the weekend of March 12–14, 2010.
Titled “The Rise of Atheism”, it is being billed as the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history”. The more than twenty presenters include some of the “cream” of the world’s most prominent and vocal atheists. These include the notorious “ethicist” Professor Peter Singer who has made it plain that some animals have greater “rights” than human infants, who can even be killed after birth in certain circumstances.
Also, the fanatically anti-creationist biology professor PZ Myers, who runs a well-known “science blog”—and of course self-styled “devil’s chaplain” and Darwinism promoter extraordinaire Dr Richard Dawkins will be there in full force. As will a whole array of representatives of various rationalist, humanist, skeptic and freethinker groups.
As would be expected by men like Richard Dawkins, the debate invitation was rejected. Though most of the documentation is spelled out in the above CMI article, I thought the RESPONSE from PZ Myers was most noteworthy.
Though I believe a public debate such as this one would be extremely beneficial to open-minded individuals who are capable of intellectually discerning debate tricks from good arguments, the fact that the debate was refused gives me even more confidence in my position. And this seems to be the case all over the map. That is, one side is always willing to publicly expose themselves and one side isn't.
Oh yeah, I get it. Why would anyone want to waste their time debating something like Creationism?
"I really can't see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism."
Right. So you can turn down the challenge to debate such a silly idea, but you'll spent countless thousands of dollars holding seminars (think about how much airfare this costs!), publishing books and magazines, appearing on radio and TV; all to expose a silly idea. But no, we cannot and will not publicly debate those whom we devote this much time and money on.
The day when evolutionists stop spending so much time and money focusing on Creationism and ID is the day when I stop expecting them to debate.
Posts
8 comments:
You're a member of a band and you think you're qualified to write about evolutionary biology?
Serious scientists don't debate evolution-deniers for the same reason they don't debate flat-earthers: it's a waste of time to debate retards.
Most biologists don't waste their time talking about childish idiotic ideas like "the god fairy used a magic wand to make cockroaches out of nothing".
But maybe more scientists should speak out against this out of control stupidity, because uneducated Christian morons are constantly trying to dumb down science education to accommodate their insane Dark Ages beliefs.
Christian assholes always lose in court, but that doesn't stop them from yelling at, harassing, and threatening biology teachers. This intimidation of America's science teachers to dumb down science education is treason, and these worse than worthless Christian scum would be put in prison if it was up to me.
Of course this explains everything:
DEFENDING BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
Your worthless Bible needs defending. It's full of gibberish and bullshit.
What does not defending is evolution, and idea supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence.
Evidence is something you magical creation idiots will never understand.
Interesting. Call me crazy, but I would never spend thousands and thousands of dollars, flying all over the world, appearing on TV and radio, holding conferences and seminars, spending countless hours writing books and magazine articles, about an issue that you describe with such colorful words.
Actions speak louder than words.
I also find it pretty humorous that you "waste your time" trying to convince creationists, but at the same time, "Evolution does not need defending."
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But then again, if we are all just matter in motion, then making sense probably wouldn't be a high priority to you. And it also seems that ethics aren't a high priority either, given the rudeness of your comments.
I find it hard to take anything Harry Potter fans say seriously.
William Lane Craig has also ducked quite a few debates as of late - are we automatically to assume that he's afraid?
I think Craig has enough debates on his belt to reasonably conclude that he's not afraid. In addition, it would be difficult to deny that Craig has debated the best that the other side has to offer. Dawkins, on the other hand, has not.
Post a Comment