Ever notice anything about this forum?

[LuisDantas]

Such as? Honest, I'm drawing a complete blank here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are we still talking about Creationism? Because if so, science (Evolutionism) is very much truth, as opposed to the alternative.

Hang around scientists, tell them that science is a search for truth, & you just might get your ears boxed.
All theories are subject to change. To paraphrase Geo Box, all theories are wrong, but some are useful.

What can we do if Creationism is by definition either ignorant or delusional?

If you believe that someone is ignorant, delusional, stupid, or intellectually dishonest, what good does it do to insult them?
You certainly won't inspire civil discourse. Some thoughts are best unexpressed....example: If you see a fat girl, do you tell
her what a disgusting lazy slob you think she is?

 

[Quagmire]

Such as? Honest, I'm drawing a complete blank here.

The current 2 most typical reactions to the Creation myth are:

1. To read it literally and proclaim it the word of God.

2. Read it literally and proclaim it garbage.

Considering how extreme and basically shallow both of these reactions are, there should be room in between for all kinds of other possibilities.

Basically anything would stand a really good chance of being more reasonable. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

If you believe that someone is ignorant, delusional, stupid, or intellectually dishonest, what good does it do to insult them?

It might perhaps shock them out of their safety zone, I guess. That is sometimes constructive if one is courageous or lucky.

But that is an aside, unrelated to our discussion. I am not insulting Creationists by stating that Creationism is ignorant or delusional. I am simply stating the facts as they are.

It is Creationists who are insulting themselves by having access to better knowledge and choosing not to.

You certainly won't inspire civil discourse.

Civil discourse is out of the table from the get-go if we are expected to lend Creationism a veneer of credibility, of course. That is not civil discourse. It is bad faith, if not all-out moral weakness or even full dishonesty.

And I expected the one that goes by the alias of Revoltingest to understand that civil discourse is sometimes an unaffordable luxury and not the most constructive or respectful approach. Maybe I was wrong about that.

Some thoughts are best unexpressed....example: If you see a fat girl, do you tell her what a disgusting lazy slob you think she is?

Under the right circunstances, I just might. It really depends on what the likely results are and how constructive such an approach might be in constrast to all reasonable alternatives.

For much the same reasons, people aren't really supposed to tolerate Creationism. It is the expression of blind faith over honest knowledge, and should be treated with the due repulse and rejection. Particularly by those who believe in God and appreciate His gifts, which supposedly include the gifts of moral and intelectual virtue.

 

[LuisDantas]

The current 2 most typical reactions to the Creation myth are:

1. To read it literally and proclaim it the word of God.

2. Read it literally and proclaim it garbage.

Considering how extreme and basically shallow both of these reactions are, there should be room in between for all kinds of other possibilities.

Basically anything would stand a really good chance of being more reasonable. :yes:

Sure. Trouble is, anything but the first alternative is in fact support for Evolutionism... or a serious lack of knowledge about it, at least.

Evolutionism vs Creationism is a very loopsided "fight". One side has facts on its side and much support from both those who understand it and those who don't really. The other has only adepts of blind faith. It is only due to the passion of hardcore Creationists (and the serious deficiency of current education) that Creationism is still significant in any way.

 

[Revoltingest]

It might perhaps shock them out of their safety zone, I guess. That is sometimes constructive if one is courageous or lucky.

That's a lame excuse to heap abuse.

But that is an aside, unrelated to our discussion. I am not insulting Creationists by stating that Creationism is ignorant or delusional. I am simply stating the facts as they are.

It all depends upon how it's said. I think too many here are all about being anti-creationist, & spend far more time dissing the poster rather than addressing the issues.

It is Creationists who are insulting themselves by having access to better knowledge and choosing not to.

So....if you employ the metaphor that they're insulting themselves, then this is license for others to insult & abuse them? Were I to employ your reasoning, I'd be flaming you pretty harshly right now.

Civil discourse is out of the table from the get-go if we are expected to lend Creationism a veneer of credibility, of course. That is not civil discourse. It is bad faith, if not all-out moral weakness or even full dishonesty.

Dang, you're harsh.

And I expected the one that goes by the alias of Revoltingest to understand that civil discourse is sometimes an unaffordable luxury and not the most constructive or respectful approach. Maybe I was wrong about that.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "Revoltingest".

Under the right circunstances, I just might. It really depends on what the likely results are and how constructive such an approach might be in constrast to all reasonable alternatives.
For much the same reasons, people aren't really supposed to tolerate Creationism. It is the expression of blind faith over honest knowledge, and should be treated with the due repulse and rejection.

Doesn't sound very tolerant to me. Perhaps that's why the more qualified creationists stay away....even the staff here treats'm like dirt.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it doesn't sound very tolerant, I agree.

Appearances are so deceiving.

 

[doppelganger]

I have my doubts that there's any forum where the
Creationist/Evolutionist "debate" isn't utterly lame and pointless.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure. Trouble is, anything but the first alternative is in fact support for Evolutionism... or a serious lack of knowledge about it, at least.

I don't see why that's a problem.

Evolutionism vs Creationism is a very loopsided "fight". One side has facts on its side and much support from both those who understand it and those who don't really.

Understanding the TOE isn't the problem here (IMO). The problem is in a misunderstanding of the intention and nature of Genesis.

The other has only adepts of blind faith.

If only that were true.

I'll agree with the "blind" part, but I wouldn't go so far as to call what most of the Creationists we see here in RF have faith. IMO, the word faith should be used to designate a belief based on conviction. A belief based on convienance deserves another term.

It is only due to the passion of hardcore Creationists (and the serious deficiency of current education) that Creationism is still significant in any way.

It's due to the fact that it's convenient for many, emotionally appealing to many, and (thus) useful to a dangerous few.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's a lame excuse to heap abuse.

Yes, it is. And it is an even poorer excuse for accepting abuse, too.

It all depends upon how it's said. I think too many here are all about being anti-creationist, & spend far more time dissing the poster rather than addressing the issues.

That is not at all my experience. But I guess it often looks that way, in part because when it comes to Creationism we usually give way too much leeway to weird distortions and lies, lending them a superficial resemblance of respectability. It is a mess to put things right after that.

Such is the price of misplaced political correctness.

So....if you employ the metaphor that they're insulting themselves,

It is no metaphor, but rather a diagnosis.

then this is license for others to insult & abuse them? Were I to employ your reasoning, I'd be flaming you pretty harshly right now.

Go ahead. I don't much like to be protected for no good reason.

And for the record, you are wrong if you think I want or need a license to insult or abuse Creationists. You failed to understand my point.

Dang, you're harsh.

Yes, quite often I am. I try to employ the right measure and approach for each situation. Being gentle can be very destructive. It can encourage abusive behavior, which I have come to abhor.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "Revoltingest".

I guess I don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see why that's a problem.

Because it makes hurting the feelings of Creationists pretty much unavoidable.

 

[Quagmire]

Because it makes hurting the feelings of Creationists pretty much unavoidable.

Pulling someone's head out of their *** is always painful for them. But the only alternative is to leave them in a world where everything looks like ****.

Which is crueler?

 

[LuisDantas]

Good point. S*** really st**ks, doesn't it?

 

[doppelganger]

Pulling someone's head out of their *** is always painful for them. But the only alternative is to leave them in a world where everything looks like ****.

Which is crueler?

Though the measure by which they're judging is not what it looks like, but HOW looking at it that way makes them feel.

That's why the "debate" is ridiculous. The two sides aren't trying to do anything whatsoever in common. One side is talking about an explanatory theory for biological diversity that incidentally takes humanity out of the center of the plan (and hence the individual "believer"), while the other side is reactively fashioning a defensive wall to maintain the comfort of their faith.

It has nothing to do with a give and take or reasoned exchange. They are fundamentally at absolute cross purposes.

 

[Quagmire]

Good point. S*** really st**ks, doesn't it?

Makes good fertilizer though.

Though the measure by which they're judging is not what it looks like, but HOW looking at it that way makes them feel.

Exactly. I've often thought how useful it would be to post and sticky a Religious Extremist Dictionary in these debate forums.

(exp.) Truth noun def. Those ideas which make me feel good.
Those ideas which allow me live with myself without having to engage in self evaluation or personal growth.

Falsehood noun def. Everything else.

That's why the "debate" is ridiculous. The two sides aren't trying to do anything whatsoever in common. One side is talking about an explanatory theory for biological diversity that incidentally takes humanity out of the center of the plan (and hence the individual "believer"), while the other side is reactively fashioning a defensive wall to maintain the comfort of their faith.

Of course. But there's value in showing that that's whats going on. If these debates serve no other purpose than that, it's still worthwhile hosting them.

It has nothing to do with a give and take or reasoned exchange. They are fundamentally at absolute cross purposes.

Not always. A lot of the time members from both teams are doing exactly the same thing: trying to reinforce whatever ideas they already had about the other side.

 

[doppelganger]

Not always. A lot of the time members from both teams are doing exactly the same thing: trying to reinforce whatever ideas they already had about the other side.

Well, yes, in the "debate" itself they are. But as to the inquiry that leads them to the conclusions about which they believe they are debating, they have completely opposing purposes.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, yes, in the "debate" itself they are. But as to the inquiry that leads them to the conclusions about which they believe they are debating, they have completely opposing purposes.

Unless the side that's trying to understand evolution is mainly doing it in an effort to gather ammunition against the other side, which I suspect is sometimes the case.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is anedoctal evidence, and second-hand one at that, but I heard of biology grad students that admitted of entering the course for just that reason. Seems to me that they were somewhat proud of it, too.

Sad, really.

 

[Quagmire]

It is anedoctal evidence, and second-hand one at that, but I heard of biology grad students that admitted of entering the course for just that reason. Seems to me that they were somewhat proud of it, too.

Sad, really.

In some ways, but understandable I think. Religion is a powerful force in human society, and to varying degrees in each individual's life, so just about everyone has to come to terms with it in one way or another.

I'm guessing that's why a lot of people are here.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess so. But I have always felt that fear is a poor helper, and those who truly love and adhere to a faith shouldn't bother to listen to fear of questioning.