Local Baptist Church Spreading Anti-Evolution Junk Mail

PDN

Have you ever thought that those who hold different views to yourself might actually be sincerely wrong rather than dishonest?

I think you are wrong in many of your views, Robin. But I can disagree strongly with you, and enjoy a debate with you, without thinking that you are dishonest.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Have you ever thought that those who hold different views to yourself might actually be sincerely wrong rather than dishonest?

I've put this forward many times in the creationism thread.

However, since the DVD pushed through jtsuited's letter box was entitled "Confronting Evolution", a title most commonly used by Kent Hovind, who's currently in prison for fraud and one of the most splendidly egregious liars in the entire creationist movement, I think it's quite reasonable to say that in this case it's a simple case of dishonesty.

Do you still believe it might be "bigotry" to point this out?

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

However, since the DVD pushed through jtsuited's letter box was entitled "Confronting Evolution", a title most commonly used by Kent Hovind, who's currently in prison for fraud and one of the most splendidly egregious liars in the entire creationist movement, I think it's quite reasonable to say that in this case it's a simple case of dishonesty.

In fairness to the churchgoers, they may not be aware of the blatant and systematic lying going on within the creationist camp.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I've put this forward many times in the creationism thread.

However, since the DVD pushed through jtsuited's letter box was entitled "Confronting Evolution", a title most commonly used by Kent Hovind, who's currently in prison for fraud and one of the most splendidly egregious liars in the entire creationist movement, I think it's quite reasonable to say that in this case it's a simple case of dishonesty.

Do you still believe it might be "bigotry" to point this out?

No, and I don't accuse you of bigotry for pointing it out. I do suspect those of bigotry who state how annoyed they get at receiving a piece of junk mail with which they disagree (with no mention of Kent Hovind, whoever he might be).

5uspect

Creationism, and in particular that thread, is something of a special case. Its gone way beyond the idea that its adherents are innocently ill informed. I'm sure lots of people are ignorant or wary of evolution and science in general through poor education and various other factors. The degree of self delusion, lies, wilful ignorance and trollish behaviour on that thread typifies and caricatures the Creationist for a lot of Atheists.

If anything it damages peoples view of Christians in general. I can understand people wanting to believe in a god to some degree. Its something I would like to understand more. However the Creationists have shown that they're no better than the loons that inhabit the Conspiracy Theories and Paranormal forums. It seems a rather egotistical way of making themselves feel important by possessing this unique knowledge that's so clearly obvious to them.

So clear in fact that they swerve to avoid providing anything approaching the evidence they claim exists. If someone said they didn't think evolution was possible then we can engage in debate (Brian Calgary made an attempt not so long ago but dismissed it rather hastily). The Creationist knows that God did it and therefore there is no debate with them. The only thing up for discussion is anything that allows the spread of such rubbish.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Stop making stuff up about me. I am insinuating no such thing.

You are free to oppose the Creationists' ideas and to refute them with ideas of your own. However, the tendency among posters in this thread to get angry at such junk mail does appear to me to betray a measure of bigotry.

Again you are not being clear. You either see it as a true dichotomy (you're bigot or you're not) or you agree with me it's not a dichotomy or something else. It's completely unclear what you are saying.

Now, as for refuting with my "own ideas". They are not my own ideas. They are that of the entire scientific community and the same "ideas" which are basis for how we treat disease. Why are you trying to suggest they are just my ideas?

I think many ideas are junk. I devote a large part of my time to encouraging people to think differently and to reject such junk ideas. However, I should be able to do so in a way that is good humored and good natured. Lots of people are going to hold opinions contrary to mine - and they will argue their case by various means. Hardly worth getting angry or annoyed about it.

It's hardly worth getting annoyed unless you have a worthy reason. I gave a reason. So what then matters is weather that reason is worthy or not.

Instead of refutting why the reason is not worthy, you have taken a step right back and come up with a principle which transcends and largely ignores the specifics of this thread. Why not deal with the specifics?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

In fairness to the churchgoers, they may not be aware of the blatant and systematic lying going on within the creationist camp.

They may not be, but whose fault is their own ignorance?

All somebody has to do is to type "kent hovind" into google and the first link will give you as much as you can read about his fraud case.

It's a bit difficult to believe that the church that's spreading this stuff around -- and presumably bought it off the internet too -- hadn't invested a minute or two in trying to find out at least something about what and who they were spending their money on.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I do suspect those of bigotry who state how annoyed they get at receiving a piece of junk mail with which they disagree (with no mention of Kent Hovind, whoever he might be).

Why?

Is it not possible to be annoyed by some Creationist distortion being pushed out to the public without being a bigot?

Have to agree with Tim here, you seem to be setting up an either or situation just so you can dismiss people as bigots.

eoin5

PDN wrote: »

By the same argument you can accuse those who spend money going to football matches, buying clothes, or eating in restaurants of doing something wrong.

Is it just churches that should spend 100% of their money on humanitarian projects? Do you apply this standard to other people as well?

I suppose it about drawing lines in the sand, moral relativism and all that. Personally I guess I'm disappointed in them more than anything.

jtsuited

PDN, as has been pointed out, you are doing a silly little sophists' trick with your bigotry stance.

If I see a political party blatantly lie, am I a bigot for getting annoyed with them?
If I see someone say mindlessly ignorant and wrong things and I get annoyed, am I a bigot?

You see, your problem PDN is you want to give equal credit to all sides of an argument even if one is based on rational inquiry and the other Middle Eastern Mythology.

And then you attempt to insinuate that anyone who ridicules (quite justifiably) the mistruths and inaccurate information presented by a bunch of loo-la baptists is a bigot.

Silly.

Tim Robbins

jtsuited wrote: »

PDN, as has been pointed out, you are doing a silly little sophists' trick with your bigotry stance.

I wonder is the sophistry accidential or deliberate?

jackdaw

Dades wrote: »

No one can prove you don't wear ladies underwear at the weekend.

Exactly , just the same we can't prove the non existence of the great almighty spagetti monster ...

PDN

jtsuited wrote: »

PDN, as has been pointed out, you are doing a silly little sophists' trick with your bigotry stance.

If I see a political party blatantly lie, am I a bigot for getting annoyed with them?
If I see someone say mindlessly ignorant and wrong things and I get annoyed, am I a bigot?

You see, your problem PDN is you want to give equal credit to all sides of an argument even if one is based on rational inquiry and the other Middle Eastern Mythology.

And then you attempt to insinuate that anyone who ridicules (quite justifiably) the mistruths and inaccurate information presented by a bunch of loo-la baptists is a bigot.

Silly.

So, once again we see the 'dishonesty' tactic wheeled out.

I genuinely don't understand why people should get hot and bothered over a piece of junk mail that expresses a viewpoint other than their own. My own understanding of tolerance etc. leads me to accept that such junk mail is inevitable in a free society and I consign it to the dustbin with a chuckle. I might comment to my wife something along the lines of, "Can you believe that people fall for such nonsense?"

However, rather than accept that I genuinely see things differently from you, you have to accuse me of sophistry.

I have nowhere said that I treat both sides of a debate equally. Nor have I a problem with you ridiculing any piece of junk mail and its contents. But why get all angry over a piece of junk mail?

However, I've made my point, and it's hardly worthwhile for me to repeat it since it seems to annoy both you and Tim Robbins enough for you both to accuse me of sophistry and to assign to me beliefs and motives that Ive never expressed. Still, I suppose it's better than calling me a 'narrow minded bigot' for no other reason than, as a Christian posting on an atheist board, I proposed that we should be tolerant of one another.

So, if you guys want to go getting all angry over bits of junk mail then go ahead - knock yourselves out. I just hope you don't burst a blood vessel.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

However, rather than accept that I genuinely see things differently from you, you have to accuse me of sophistry.

I have nowhere said that I treat both sides of a debate equally. Nor have I a problem with you ridiculing any piece of junk mail and its contents. But why get all angry over a piece of junk mail?

Your sophistry was a false dichotomy.

So, if you guys want to go getting all angry over bits of junk mail then go ahead - knock yourselves out. I just hope you don't burst a blood vessel.

I get angry because I see Science having to waste time dealing with propaganda. This detracts it from helping humanity. Most people with an interest in humanity and a knowledge of Science would feel this way.

Instead of actually dealing with that valid point, you completly ignored it. You engage in sophistry again and are trying to insinuate that I am just getting angry over junk mail and nothing else. That's a straw man and an act of omission.

The only thing I am curious about is how much of your sophistry is accidental and how much of it is deliberate?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why people should get hot and bothered over a piece of junk mail that expresses a viewpoint other than their own.

You are doing it again

No one should get hot and bothered over other people's view points, that is intolerant, that is bigotry I say!! BOO!! HISS!! Intolerance is bad!! Ummkay

Whats that? The other persons view point is that black people are 90% more likely to molest children so black people shouldn't be allowed adopt, and this is being posted on billboards across the country with a logo that makes it look like serious scientific research rather than just made up nonsense. Oh yes ...

The fact of the matter, as you no doubt already know, is that there are plenty of good reasons to get "hot and bothered" over the expression of another viewpoint based on what that view point is and the effect the spread of that view point has on society.

I picked a very extreme example above, but this holds to lots of other things as well, including the unsolicited promotion of anti-science literature.

Judging from previous posts you don't seem to particularly care that much about science or science education, or the effect that Creationism is having in eroding scientific standards and the perception of science in the public eye. That's fine, you don't have to care. Lots of people do care though. Lots of people do get worked up about this issue. They are intolerant of the other persons ideas because the other persons idea is a set of lies and misinformation designed to erode scientific standards.

PDN wrote: »

However, rather than accept that I genuinely see things differently from you, you have to accuse me of sophistry.

Er, no. You slyly accused those who don't consign it to the dust bin with a "chuckle" of being bigots and suggesting that the actually problem is that they are intolerant of ideas different to their own.

As someone who regularly gets annoyed on the Christian forum with what you perceive as spam and trolling from non-Christians (on Boards.ie, not exactly the most important public forum in the world), your holier than thou stance of "tolerance" towards this issue comes across as some what hollow. :rolleyes:

pH

PDN wrote: »

Still, I suppose it's better than calling me a 'narrow minded bigot' for no other reason than, as a Christian posting on an atheist board, I proposed that we should be tolerant of one another.

No PDN, you thought it was clever to use the phrase "but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots" here in this forum, now I'm sure in *your* mind you're not calling atheists crackpots, perhaps because of a list you gave in the previous paragraph, or some other technical linguistic convention, but the intention to troll was clear.

So I used the phrase "you & other narrow minded bigots", in what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander so to speak. For now to say you were called a bigot for no other reason than proposing we should be tolerant of each other is outrageous, but then at this stage I don't expect anything more of you.

Like I said, in your mind I called you a bigot and you certainly didn't call atheists crackpots, and you can invent a reading of your post and mine which justifies that position I'm sure.

So let me assure you then that I used the phrase "you & other narrow minded bigots" in exactly the same way that you used the phrase "atheists & other crackpots". If you weren't calling atheists crackpots then I certainly wasn't calling you a bigot, if you were then I was, and if you were trying to be terribly clever and get a rise out of an atheist then so was I also.

And as Dades as already asked, that ends the handbags from me

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why people should get hot and bothered

As Wicknight says, you don't care about science, or scientific honesty, and you seem to have enormous difficulty in understanding why anybody else might.

Turning the tables around, would you get upset if some other religion started putting stuff through your letter box saying that christianity was a false religion, worshipped a false deity, and all christian leaders were liars?

Or would you lob it into the bin with a merry chuckle?

jtsuited

robindch wrote: »

Turning the tables around, would you get upset if some other religion started putting stuff through your letter box saying that christianity was a false religion, worshipped a false deity, and all christian leaders were liars?

Ironically enough, there's a hell of a lot more credible evidence for those things than the anti-science nonsense.

*Goes to make a flyer and dvd for mass distribution*