Jim’s off-topic comments

[Jim]

Why does Jim refer to itself in the third person.

He can’t figure it out either. He doesn’t remember doing that in any other threads that he started, about himself.

 

[Jim]

Why does Jim refer to itself in the third person.

I see now that this is not the first time. He did it in this thread, too:

Jim’s views and goals

 

[Jim]

I see “dangerous cult” as another term that is used in public discussions only to stigmatize people, without communicating anything at all about the people being stigmatized.
(edited for typo)

 

[Audie]

I see “dangerous cult” as another word that is used in public discussions only to stigmatize people, without communicating anything at all about the people being stigmatized.

Uh, Heaven's Gate? Jim Jones? Waco?

"Only"?

Also, distinhuish svo between a cult / nation etc and individuals?

 

[Audie]

I see now that this is not the first time. He did it in this thread, too:

Jim’s views and goals

 

[Jim]

For me, for possible use later:

Five principles for arguing against creationism

 

[Jim]

A discussion I was in aroused my curiosity about debates around creationism, and evidence against it. From what I’ve seen so far, the creationism that people are debating about is not a theory. It’s an anti-theory. Its whole purpose, the reason for its existence, is to discredit evolution theories.

 

[Jim]

I’ve done a little more research on creation vs evolution controversies. Partly it seems to be about the objections of some parents to public education being used to indoctrinate children against some religious beliefs. I don’t doubt that evolution theory is used that way sometimes. If so, I think that’s wrong. I disagree with responding to that by trying to discredit evolution theory, and/or trying to have some creation theory taught along with it.

I see that some models for the history of life on earth have been created which allegedly explain everything that evolution theory does, better than evolution theory does, without denying that humans and other species were all created separately, along with all the rest of the universe, 10,000 years ago or less. The appearance of new species in the fossil records is explained somehow as a consequence of a worldwide flood. Even that we’re true, I don’t see that as a reason not to teach evolution theory in the schools, or to teach creation theory alongside of it. The reason evolution is taught is because it’s part of the common framework in the science of biology and some other sciences. Creation theory is not.

 

[Jim]

Until a few days ago, I never questioned the idea that all living creatures have a common ancestor. Now, I’m not so sure, and the more I learn about the alleged evidence for it, the more comical it looks to me.

I still think that evolution theory should be taught in public school science classes, and not Bible stories.

 

[Jim]

What I’ve seen in this thread has started me thinking about some possible adverse effects of factional feuding on what research and theories can do for human progress. I posted my idea that evolution theory and research will become more fruitful and beneficial when they are opened up to other ways of thinking besides imagining that all life on earth has a common ancestor. The person that I thought of as the most reasonable in that thread reacted to that with a personal attack against me, and an endorsement of the stigma on people who don’t believe in the idea of a common ancestor for all life on earth. I’m not sure how much that factional thinking is affecting research, but I’ve seen possible signs that it is discouraging the kind of free thinking and free exchange of ideas that is most beneficial to human progress.

 

[Jim]

I think that it’s better for all people everywhere, and for human progress, for people to think freely and exchange ideas freely, without any views being stigmatized. One way I see views being stigmatized is by saying or insinuating that they are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific.” One example of that is stigmatizing people who don’t believe that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

 

[Jim]

In my experience, most often people who call themselves atheists say that it means that their beliefs don’t include any belief in any God, which is different from denying that any God exists or is real. At the same time, they are often seen denouncing some Christian and Muslim beliefs. Possibly because of that, sometimes people say “atheism” when they really mean opposition to some Christian and Muslim beliefs.

 

[Jim]

Some more thoughts about atheists and atheism: Maybe the people we see calling themselves atheists the most often have a common interest in denouncing belief in a creator God who communicates with us verbally. That could have an effect of discouraging people who don’t have much interest in denouncing that belief from calling themselves atheists. Then no matter how people define “atheist” in words, mostly what they really mean when they say “atheists” and “atheism” is “people continually denouncing belief in that kind of God. That might be what leads to thinking of atheists and atheism as people believing that there really is no such God, which I think is true sometimes but not always.

 

[Jim]

Sometimes people think that they are saved by their beliefs.

 

[Jim]

I’m posting this to help me organize my thoughts, and at the same time maybe get some ideas from some other people.

A question that someone posted started me thinking about what I’ve been doing and what I might want to do about the divisive behavior of people promoting and defending some beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith,” and possibly hiding a light that I see in another Baha’i Faith and repelling people away from it. I see a that as part of some larger issues which I’ve been addressing by practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations. Also, more specifically in Internet discussions, now I’m trying to learn to have friendly conversations with people who are feuding with each other, about my disagreements with them.

I’m wondering now if I want to try to do anything specifically about the debating between Baha’is and other people, and if so what. I’ve posted in discussions about evolution because I have a personal interest in that topic, so maybe my personal interest in the worldwide Baha’i Faith community would be reason enough to post in discussions about the beliefs, attitudes and behavior of a few people who are calling their beliefs “the Baha’i Faith.” Maybe what I would do would be to try to have some friendly conversations with them about my disagreements with them.

 

[Jim]

Now that I think of it, I see some parallels between debating about “evolution” and debating about “the Baha’i Faith.” I see people debating about some beliefs that they call “evolution,” possibly creating some confusion and misunderstandings about research in evolution. That’s similar to people debating about some beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith,” possibly creating some confusion and misunderstandings about the worldwide Baha’i Faith community. Part of my response to evolution debating has been to learn more about evolution research and post about what I’ve been learning. May I’ll try doing something like that with what the worldwide Baha’i Faith community is doing.

 

[Jim]

I think now that I’ve been vastly overestimating the science literacy of people who call their views “scientific,” as if that makes their views true and opposing views false. That should have been obvious to me from the start. That in itself is a glaring sign of ignorance about science.

 

[Jim]

It bewilders me how people who never read any actual research can think that they’re so well informed about it that they can tell other people that they’re wrong.

 

[Jim]

It grieves me to see people using religious scriptures like construction toys.

 

[Jim]

It hurts a little to see someone pretending to be talking to me, when all they are doing is PR and damage control.