Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Group Think, there's no question that they really, really hate "freepers".
Unless, of course, it's them doing the freeping. Then, it's all hunky dory.
This time, the idea actually isn't theirs. In fact, it actually turns out to be the brainchild of "EZ" PZ Myers.
The entire affair revolves around Ian Bushfield and the University of Alberta's Atheists and Agnostics' Associations' demands that references to God be removed from the U of A convocation ceremony.
The Edmonton Sun offered up a poll asking readers whether or not they agreed.
As it turns out, things were not going the way Myers, Cynic and their ilk would have hoped. In fact, before Myers chose to intercede in the poll, 67% of those who had answered preferred to keep references to God in the ceremony.
"Will that have changed when I wake up in the morning, I wonder…?" Myers asked, seemingly hypothetically. Considering that the title of his post was "Canadian Poll to Crash", he had to have known full well that his flock of mindless sheep were going to do precisely that.
In the end, the Myers'-inflated poll result produced a 91% margin of victory for himself and his atheist sheep.
Unsurprisingly, Cynic feels quite triumphant over this result. Of course, it this had been, oh say... the Canadian Blog Awards, they would have whined to high heaven.
Fortunately, the Edmonton Sun poll in question is and remains entirely meaningless. The defeat incurred by Cynic and his coterie of mindless douchebags when they failed to deliver the Galloping Beaver a blog award (via freeping) is certainly much less so -- it represents a wholesale rejection of Cynic's imagined influence in the Canadian blogosphere.
Still, Cynic and his cronies at the Groupthink Temple simply wouldn't feel like themselves if they weren't proving themselves to be the utter apex of intellectual dishonesty, cowardice and hypocrisy in the Canadian blogosphere.
There's something very special about becoming everything one claims to hate -- something that generally only the most intractable ideologues can fail to appreciate.
PZ Myers point of crashing polls has always been to prove their pointlessness. Internet polls are notoriously unscientific and the idea to crash them is merely an exercise to prove that to those who may argue otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIan Bushfield
President, UofA Atheists and Agnostics
He did label the post "pointless polls", so there's little question about that.
ReplyDeleteNow, that being said, there's no question that the results of this poll have been distorted. And there's little question that some individuals are going to use those distorted results in order to promote their own agenda.
Which still comes back to my original point: if these polls are really entirely invalid because they're unscientific, then why do individuals such as Canadian Cynic take them so bloody seriously?
Just something to chew on.
Now, that being said, your entire agenda vis a vis removing any mention of God from the convocation is no less pointless than Campus for Christ's "God Election".
That's as good a review as I need. I've never really read Cynic's blog. I've read other blogs that describe him as a leftie. This just illustrates that the label is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteOh, but don't you know? Canadian Cynic isn't just a left-winger, he's a progressive!
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that his blog is actually anything but progressive, and actually encourages regression into the "cold-eyed sneering" favoured by individuals such as Richard Dawkins.
He's actually quite giddy about his coming meeting with PZ Myers. He actually seems as excited as a Catholic about to meet the Pope!
Which, in a certain sense, he almost is.
That's as good a review as I need. I've never really read Cynic's blog. I've read other blogs that describe him as a leftie. This just illustrates that the label is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how using an invalid poll illustrates the point he's a "leftie." There's idiots all across the political spectrum who use stupid polls (look at the Edmonton Sun above).
Now, that being said, your entire agenda vis a vis removing any mention of God from the convocation is no less pointless than Campus for Christ's "God Election".
It may be pointless to apatheists and the Christian majority, but to me it's a sign of continued intolerance and is one small thing that I can change on this campus for the better. As one of the profs said at the GFC Exec meeting: "it's not just about the UofA being inclusive, it's about appearing inclusive."
"It may be pointless to apatheists and the Christian majority, but to me it's a sign of continued intolerance and is one small thing that I can change on this campus for the better."
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to view it as a change of any consequence, let alone one for the better.
In terms of intolerance, let's stop and think about this for approximately ten seconds: the reference to God in the convocation speech doesn't merely apply to Christians, considering that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the literally same god. Furthermore, if one subscribes to Unitarian beliefs, then all religious people worship variations on the same god.
To remove the god reference from the convocation ceremony would actually make the University less inclusive -- repudiating the religious beliefs of the majority in the name of the religious beliefs of a minority.
How, precisely, do you think this makes the university more inclusive, or even look more inclusive?
I doesn't hold logical water, I'm afraid.
To remove the god reference from the convocation ceremony would actually make the University less inclusive -- repudiating the religious beliefs of the majority in the name of the religious beliefs of a minority.
ReplyDeleteWrong. I don't want the chancellor to denounce God or deny the existence of anything, I want a secular institution, as Alexander Rutherford and Dr. Tory envisioned when it was founded.
No faith is harmed by not thrusting it down other peoples throats, but a greater audience is reached by removing it (consider the deists, Buddhists, etc. who don't believe in a God, or that He shouldn't be glorified).
Nonsense. It would take a hell of a lot more than one passing reference to God in a convocation speech to theocratize the University.
ReplyDeleteWhat really amuses me about this entire "issue" is that you want us to believe that it's simply about "secularizing" the University. You'd really like us to believe that.
You, the president of the U of A Atheists and Agnostics, want us to believe that this isn't about atheism.
Unfortunately for you, Ian, most people aren't that stupid. People can put two and two together.
People realize that giving in to your demand would, by default, put your religion above no less than three other religions which make up the majority in this country, and on this campus.
There's a strong tradition underlying this particular line of the convocation speech -- traditions that are also manifest in the University's motto.
Furthermore, Ian, the only people who, to my knowledge, have been complaining about this are you and your fellow atheists. I certainly haven't heard any Buddhist complaints about it.