More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Dades

JCB wrote: »

All of that is grand - I am not arguing with you on the Lisbon Issues - but I am still interested to know why you opened the thread to link it to Creationism and by extention Christians.

As Tim has said, he felt like posting here to canvas opinion from those of us he engages with regularly on forum-related topics. The mention of creationists*, I would agree, is a reference to a group who have no facts on which to base their position. A controversial title, but of course the thread is open to anyone to post a rebuttal. And posted they have.

In reality it has nothing to do with atheism, but the thread generated some good debate amongst regular and not-so-regular posters and that's what we're here for.

* NOT by extention, Christians, afaic

Tim Robbins

JCB wrote: »

Well creationism is related to Christians, it's not a religion onto itself.

Oh comeone, you robbed it off the Jews :-)

Hmm, I don't see that mentioned half enough around here, though i am confident you will lead the way Tim Robbins.

It's something Churches need to be very clear on. Especially the Protestant ones.

'Atheist response to Lisbon Rejection' would be more accurate here on the topical issue don't you think? Though perhaps the creationism reference was just for comic value with no malice or intellectual snobbery intended?

Yeah comic value, if you want to call it that.

Hmm, so it's ok for me to 'judge' you but not to give out about you 'judging' others based on your opinion on lisbon?

I was doing the latter btw i have no interest in labeling you.

You just can't have it both ways.

JCB

Dades wrote: »

As Tim has said, he felt like posting here to canvas opinion from those of us he engages with regularly on forum-related topics. The mention of creationists*, I would agree, is a reference to a group who have no facts on which to base their position. A controversial title, but of course the thread is open to anyone to post a rebuttal. And posted they have.

In reality it has nothing to do with atheism, but the thread generated some good debate amongst regular and not-so-regular posters and that's what we're here for.

* NOT by extention, Christians, afaic

I am delighted to see some balance come back to this thread.

Of course, I'm not questioning the value of the 'debate' but really so many of the threads have the 'religion=stupid' and by extention 'those who believe in religion=stupid' bias such as the post below.....

Ok-Cancel-Reply wrote:

I wonder what percentage of people voted 'no' primarily because of the religion (abortion) issue. Had a certain group of people put aside their religious beliefs, could we have seen a 'yes' result?

... that you must question the benefit of threads like this one, since all you have to do is say;
'more annoying **some religious belief** or **your favorite hobby horse**'
to get bands of posters self congratulating themselves on how rational they are because they happen to have a non-religion related opinion in common.

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You just can't have it both ways.

You're right I guess I'm judging you for asking you to stop judging others.:)

Dades

JCB wrote: »

bands of posters self congratulating themselves on how rational they are because they happen to have a non-religion related opinion in common.

You can't stop people agreeing with each other!
And I bet the discussions on the same topic on different forums took the same line.

I also seem to recall people dropping God or religion into their posts to keep the thread from being closed for irrelevance!

gramlab

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Agree the government were poor. But surely, people read newspapers, watch political programs, discuss issues with their friends.

If anything the media were probably more responsible than anyone for pushing the no vote. Fear draws listeners and readers alike and they played up to this.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Agree. But it can be subverted by ignorance which is what we have done to it.

Possibly, but labelling all no voters as ignorant is a bit much. People are entitled to form their own opinion (however reasoned or not) on issues even if it might not be the same as yours or mine.

But one of the big fears - smaller countries being pushed about manifested itself even before the vote was in --- All countries have to agree, well maybe not.............

Scofflaw

There was certainly a strong element of populism in the vote, but it was equally certainly on display in both No and Yes campaigns. Equally, there was, and always is, an element that votes against the EU for reasons that fail basic reality checks - the "NWO" guys, "EUSSR" people, the "Fourth Reich" people, and all the various other conspiracy-driven anti-everything brigade. As usual, those elements were quite prominent in the No campaign.

There was also a strong similarity between many elements of the No campaign and Creationism in terms of tactics, in particular extensive use of selective quotation from 'authorities', "technical" discussion of elements of the Treaty that turned out to rely on partial quotation from the Treaty, misinterpretation, hidden assumptions, and extremely speculative scenarios taken as factual. However, the similarity is simply based on tactical considerations - a FUD campaign is a FUD campaign, whether it's against climate change, evolution, or the smoking-cancer link.

Most importantly, the campaigns cannot be taken as representative of the voters, and the vote cannot be dismissed either on the basis of the associated campaigns - otherwise, the mainstream Yes campaigns could well be taken to discredit the whole Yes vote - or on the basis of ignorance. One can deplore the populist character of both sides, but one cannot determine the result as in some way illegitimate without setting one foot on the slippery slope to tyranny, and the other on the banana skin of special pleading.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Most importantly, the campaigns cannot be taken as representative of the voters, and the vote cannot be dismissed either on the basis of the associated campaigns - otherwise, the mainstream Yes campaigns could well be taken to discredit the whole Yes vote - or on the basis of ignorance. One can deplore the populist character of both sides, but one cannot determine the result as in some way illegitimate without setting one foot on the slippery slope to tyranny, and the other on the banana skin of special pleading.

Many people voted yes on the basic datums:
1. There was broad support for it, amongst elected representatives from the various EU states and the various parliamentary groupings in the EU (which don't align with their states).
2. There was broad support for it amongst our own political groupings.
3. The EU has been good for this country.
4. We kept our veto in key areas.
5. There was nothing alarmingly bad about the treaty.

Now, one may argue the above does not imply knowing the intrinsic details of the treaty, but I wouldn't call the above ignorance, I'd call it common sense.

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote:

• I agree the word "easily" wasn't in the poll, but I think it's implicit.
• 70% of people could have had xenophobic sentiment as their second choice.

Now you're just taking the p***.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

Now you're just taking the p***.

Well in fairness, people don't like admitting their racist, or xenophobic, they usually disguise it as:
"It's impossible to understand"
or
"I don't like being bullied to vote yes"

Dades

I''m sorry, Tim, where did you get the "70% of no-voters are xenophobic" from?

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I''m sorry, Tim, where did you get the "70% of no-voters are xenophobic" from?

I said:

"70% of people could have had xenophobic sentiment as their second choice"

Obni was only siting 1st choice for voting no.

Obni

70% of YES voters could have had an aspiration for the adoption of Creationism as an official EU policy, as their second choice.
Maybe the actual 1% documented as primarily worried about immigration were particularly concerned about protecting jobs in our IT sector. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the political end of this thread is going nowhere. I suggest we take a break until after October when the result of the summit should stir this up again.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

70% of YES voters could have had an aspiration for the adoption of Creationism as an official EU policy, as their second choice.
Maybe the actual 1% documented as primarily worried about immigration were particularly concerned about protecting jobs in our IT sector. :rolleyes:

Yes we are going off hinges and anecdotes.

Anyway, the political end of this thread is going nowhere. I suggest we take a break until after October when the result of the summit should stir this up again.

If we are still in the EU by then!

bogwalrus

Sure why not leave the Eu altogether and go invading small islands to expand an Irish Empire.

We could get some guns off the us and start with some of the English isles and canaries. Maybe then once we have enough experience take Iceland. I really dont think they will put up much of a fight with their whole weirdness thing going on.

Then hopefully by 2050 the Irish Empire will be nice and big and no need for us to be in the EU anymore. The continent of Ireland:D

Tis alot of work but maybe our only equal alternative to being in the EU.