Are all creationist dishonest?

[Revoltingest]

If they actually believe something that's entirely irrational and wholly unsubstantiated then they are being dishonest...with themselves.

People's minds don't function so flawlessly that you can say with certainty that is dishonesty is required for believing irrational things.
Would you want someone calling you dishonest every time he found you believing something unsupported by objective evidence?

 

[CyraEm]

As certain Buddhist lamas say, that is a question wrongly asked.

The problem isn't the group arguing, or the subject they are arguing about. It's the general state of discourse in the modern age and the lack of understanding when it comes to logical debating skills.

People tend to argue from the gut. They aren't so much seeking knowledge as they are defending a belief. From a defensive position, there is no reason to submit to your point, because it doesn't provide a positive outcome. From a defensive position, the only positive outcome is the continued holding-at-bay of your opposition. They have no reason to listen, and every reason to continue arguing, a situation which lends itself to circular reasoning and just about every other logical fallacy.

You, the opponent, are not off the hook either, because while they are on the defensive, you are on the offensive. If you are the one who started the debate, your goal is to make them submit to you. If they make a genuinely good point, regardless of whether or not it invalidates what you are saying, and it doesn't have to do so to be a good point, you have no reason to acknowledge it and every reason to dismiss them entirely and continue the siege. Which leads to ad hominem, and again, myriad logical fallacies.

The problem is that when arguing with beliefs, most people choose not to set aside their own personal flames, which is in my opinion the only place from which to argue correctly. In order to avoid logical fallacies, personal denial, and latent dishonesty, you must come exclusively from a place of seeking knowledge and learning, without the urge to win the argument. Treat it as if you are not trying to convince the other person, but are instead trying to puzzle out a word problem. "The law is reason free from passion."* and so must our debates be. Douse the fire in your gut, and your discourse with your peers will improve.

*Aristotle

 

[Father Heathen]

People's minds don't function so flawlessly that you can say with certainty that is dishonesty is required for believing irrational things.
Would you want someone calling you dishonest every time he found you believing something unsupported by objective evidence?

If I staunchly insisted that 2 + 2 = 5, even after someone counted it out to me, then yes I would indeed be making a dishonest assertion.

 

[outhouse]

When there is no intent to deceive, & they believe what they say, I'd call that honest.
Carrying the willful ignorance argument to its extreme, are all leftists dishonest?
Is every believer in every religion dishonest, since they all lack objective evidence?
To expand the definition of "dishonest" to include belief in anything which would be cured by knowing better is an unreasonable & rancorous stretch.
Civil discourse is best served by reserving the word "dishonest" for deliberate attempts to deceive.

I know where your going with this and your right that not all are dishonest due to ignornace.

But most of them do know there covering up and they also know there crossing a line they should not have.

 

[outhouse]

It's the general state of discourse in the modern age and the lack of understanding when it comes to logical debating skills

Maybe a small part of the time.

What we see on a daily basis is blatent lies when there cornered and cant find logic to replt with. Its blatant!

After they have been beaten up on with the club of truth they get desperate and in a frutile attempt to find a avenue out of the beating resort to lies.

You can find fancy names for lieing but its still lieing

 

[outhouse]

If I staunchly insisted that 2 + 2 = 5, even after someone counted it out to me, then yes I would indeed be making a dishonest assertion.

and this happens daily.

ignorance can olny be a valid excuse for so long

 

[Revoltingest]

If I staunchly insisted that 2 + 2 = 5, even after someone counted it out to me, then yes I would indeed be making a dishonest assertion.

That analogy fails for very complex subjects.
If a reasonably intelligent person thoughtfully tells me that 0+1=5, then I sense deception.
If the same person says we must keep spending $trillions in stimulus money to fix the economy, is he dishonest just because he's very wrong in my view, but not his own?

 

[CyraEm]

Maybe a small part of the time.

What we see on a daily basis is blatent lies when there cornered and cant find logic to replt with. Its blatant!

After they have been beaten up on with the club of truth they get desperate and in a frutile attempt to find a avenue out of the beating resort to lies.

You can find fancy names for lieing but its still lieing

You've just proven one of my points. You're on the offensive, getting quite passionate about it, and so your entire argument amounted to, "They're lying, you can tell because it's obvious. I'm not going to explain in what way it's obvious. They don't admit they're wrong, which causes them to lie."

Your statements also presuppose that you are correct (which while it can be a personally held belief, is an opinion that should not factor into the debate) and presuppose that they acknowledge internally that you are correct which is, in all probability, untrue.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they actually believe something that's entirely irrational and wholly unsubstantiated then they are being dishonest...with themselves.

Since everyone here is thought of as irrational by someone else here,
then would all our disagreements properly include accusations of dishonesty?
I agree with CyraEm, that we'd best strive for equanimity when we disagree.

 

[David M]

Youve seen new species evolve in a lab? :no: If thats true then it is a fact but we both know that you havent.

Yes we have. We've seen it in the wild and we've seen it in the lab. :yes:

Even better we have seen a new species evolve in the wild and reproduced that same evolution of a new species in the lab.

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) [Full paper downloadable from http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstr...mingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdfp

To be honest I am trying to avoiding getting into disucssion with evolutionists because they are void of logic and cannot see the flaws in their own faith system. Indeed they often fail to even recognise it as a faith at all. You cant talk to people who are so narrow minded.

Narrow-Minded, says the person who denies reality.

 

[McBell]

People's minds don't function so flawlessly that you can say with certainty that is dishonesty is required for believing irrational things.
Would you want someone calling you dishonest every time he found you believing something unsupported by objective evidence?

Out of idle curiosity...
How many threads where they are shown post after post after post of the actual truth before you consider them being dishonest?

 

[outhouse]

Your statements also presuppose that you are correct

Im stating what is in highschool level science books. There is no debate on this subject.

while it can be a personally held belief

not personal at all, why you would suggest this is beyond me

is an opinion that should not factor into the debate

If it was only opinion, i would agree. however, it is not.

 

[outhouse]

Would you want someone calling you dishonest every time he found you believing something unsupported by objective evidence?

Its not that, in your context, your right as rain


Sadly this is not the case. This is not a question of uneducated people tripping on a thread and posting, This would be the minority of threads.

 

[CyraEm]

I don't know where the original post is, so I can't quote it but @Blackheart A worldview, a belief system and a faith are three different things. You can hold beliefs outside of a religious context. For example, I believe in the existence of quarks despite them being theoretical. You can have a non-religious worldview. I am generally optimistic, but don't really see any way to be a good person without self-inflicted suffering and sacrifice. That's a worldview, and it's not based in my faith.

Evolution is more a series of beliefs for the layman, I would think. But since it's not based around any diety or higher power, it's not a faith.

 

[CyraEm]

Im stating what is in highschool level science books. There is no debate on this subject.



not personal at all, why you would suggest this is beyond me



If it was only opinion, i would agree. however, it is not.

Your opinion on whether you are correct or not is personal, yes. It's silly to claim that you have no opinion on whether or not you are correct. This is not a judgment on how right you are, this is me saying that regardless of whether or not you are right, acting as if the other person knows you are right is a poor way of going about things. You go into arguments assuming that your side is correct, and that theirs is wrong and they know it on some level. This leads you to spend the entire argument attacking instead of debating. Nothing is learned in an argument like that. Nothing is gained. Everyone walks away feeling exactly as they did before. You don't convince anyone when you go at it that way.

 

[outhouse]

Your opinion on whether you are correct or not is personal, yes

No its not personal at all, its an observation of facts that cannot be denied.

You go into arguments assuming that your side is correct

asuming is a mistake when dealing with facts.

I can learn and whn shown im incorrect I humbly accept it and thank the person for educating me.

You don't convince anyone when you go at it that way.

This is only your opinion.

This is not a thread of proof and or lack of. This is a thread about dishonesty and those that carry that sword

 

[angrymoose]

thread, after thread, after thread when presented with evidence they almost always end up being dishonest and more then not, there dishonest with themselves.

evidence is evidence and facts are facts, there is no debate about evolution.

I have seen some bring the same point up 20 times after seeing proof with evidence on every account.

will the dishonesty stop ????

Many of the facts are not trivial; e.g. the information argument. While they may screw up gaps, gaps exist

science i specialized and its easy for the talking heads to keep up

 

[Revoltingest]

Out of idle curiosity...
How many threads where they are shown post after post after post of the actual truth before you consider them being dishonest?

I don't look at it quantitatively. But do you imagine that your way of seeing things is the only possible way? Is dishonesty the only possible
explanation for disagreeing with you? I've had believers tell me that I'm a liar for denying the existence of their god....are they correct?

 

[outhouse]

I've had believers tell me that I'm a liar for denying the existence of their god....are they correct?

No they are not correct.

One is a myth and one is a observation of facts. Big big difference there bud.

The thing is they can keep the beliefs they choose AS LONG as it doesnt go against facts when it does, they have for all purposes crossed the line. That in itself does not make them a liar. But when there presented with evidence and shown proper science and they choose to ignore it is still not a lie. When they spread their views afterwards, that is a blatant lie and sadly they know it.

 

[outhouse]

Many of the facts are not trivial; e.g. the information argument. While they may screw up gaps, gaps exist

science i specialized and its easy for the talking heads to keep up

In english please im not sure what you said lol