Creationism in USA (and Ireland)

Myksyk

"You seem to be a[n]...angry person...you pedantic prat" gave me a great laugh this morning.:D

GuanYin

samb wrote:

psi, perhaps I was didn't explain my point very clearly. All I meant to say was that we should try to embrace the moderately religious (meaning those NOT inclined to extremism or creationism) and in doing so try not to be too patronising towards them. We can't help but be partronising and outraged towards the extremists because of the extent to which they lack reason. (must I qualify this statement with an explanation or references).

Your PoV is based on the assumption that the moderates believe/care what the extermists think. But by and large your post (even clarified here) is condescending rhetoric.

I am an athiest and do not BELIEVE therefore in god. I think I should be able to say this without explaining myself, must I explain everything I say even when it is not particularly relevant? I made the assumption that most of the people on this forum were also, sorry.

Well when you offer a view that may or may not be directly opposed to the views of others and don't offer any foundation behind it, bar "your belief" then in the context of any debate or argument, your view is as worthy as theirs.

I invoked no scientific reasoning because I was not trying to explian my disbelieve. I believe that the existance of god is very unlikely. That is a statement not very relevant to what I was saying admittedly, but I was not being pseudo-scientific. You, spi, have not backed up this accusation with reasoning or references yourself. How did you come to the conclusion that I was trying to be scientific?, was it because I said that I think god is UNLIKELY. Even if you have a point and I was alluding to scientific reasoning you are being hypocritical.

Your post came across as a condescending cheap shot at people who believe in God.

"6000 years", "god and reality - theoretically incompatable"

These are both lines of argument based on scientific reasoning. You didn't enter in the details, but you pulled them into your argument here.

But my bad, you alluded to scientific reasoning rather than using it.

I was making a point based on my believes. from now on when I say something and I don't explain it you can assume that it is MY BELIEF.

Perhaps then your post would be better suited on the spirituality forum, seeing as you claim to offer no scientific reasoning and only wish to put forward your beliefs?

Oh, psi, I believe that all who believe in a 6,000 year earth are seriously deluded, please explain your wooly reasoning that I meant one specific church. Please read my prevous post again you seem to be a confused, angry person,I believe. My belief, my belief, my belief, must I keep saying it you pedantic prat.

Well, youre talking about christians really (as far as I can make out). What about the hundreds of other religions out there that may believe in various different "creation" theories of varying extremes.

I'm not confused (well except maybe by your posting style and logic) or angry.

I mean for instance, I'm not the one resorting to personal abuse - which one might point to as an indication of loss of calm and anger...

samb

"6000 years", "god and reality - theoretically incompatable"

These are both lines of argument based on scientific reasoning. You didn't enter in the details, but you pulled them into your argument here.

I actually said god and reality are not incompatable concepts.
I BELIEVE the planet is much older than 6,000 years old. This believe is based on science but I didn't think it was nessesary to go into the details regarding geology etc with what I presumed was an educated bunch of people.

Well when you offer a view that may or may not be directly opposed to the views of others and don't offer any foundation behind it, bar "your belief" then in the context of any debate or argument, your view is as worthy as theirs.
Perhaps then your post would be better suited on the spirituality forum, seeing as you claim to offer no scientific reasoning and only wish to put forward your beliefs?

As I have said above: I presumed a certain level of education within this forum. My point was regarding how we try to educate or ''convert'' people away from extreme religious beliefs such as 6,000 year old creationism. I was not having a cheap shot at people who accept reality (evolution, old planet) but are religous, I was saying we should embrace this world view. Again, do you mind if I mention I believe in evolution, old planet without backing this up?, again, it is not relevant to my point. I can give offer scientific reasoning to back up my believe, but I didn't think it was relevant.
I an talking to skeptics after all.

Well, youre talking about christians really (as far as I can make out). What about the hundreds of other religions out there that may believe in various different "creation" theories of varying extremes

I was talking about anybody that is not informed about the age of the planet.

I mean for instance, I'm not the one resorting to personal abuse - which one might point to as an indication of loss of calm and anger...

Sorry about the word prat, it was silly. You called my reasoning wooly and said I couldn't string a coherent argument together. You attacked me.
Sorry that my style of posting isn't great, I can work the advanced posting on this computer for some reason. I'll try to work on my prose.

As I said before, in your prevous post you didn't yourself explian how I was alluding to scientific reasoning. You have now, but my point that we can't be expected to explain every word when making a point is still valid, you do not yourself, so don't expect everyone elso to do so, please.

GuanYin

samb wrote:

I actually said god and reality are not incompatable concepts.

Why so? I don't believe in "God" myself, but I don't see how believing in a God is in any way incompatable with any scientific theory you wish to put forward.

Please explain how they are not incopatable concepts. They both lie in completely different aspects of life. It is akin to saying Christianity is not compatible with playing Rock Guitar.

I BELIEVE the planet is much older than 6,000 years old. This believe is based on science but I didn't think it was nessesary to go into the details regarding geology etc with what I presumed was an educated bunch of people.

Indeed, but I don't think there are many people who believe the planet is 6,000 years old (although without a worldwide survey I can't back this up you understand). However, those who believe so are most certainly not "moderates" by any common sense definition of the term. This is my general truck with your posts, you seem to have some skewed definition of what moderately religious is.

As I have said above: I presumed a certain level of education within this forum. My point was regarding how we try to educate or ''convert'' people away from extreme religious beliefs such as 6,000 year old creationism.

Ah, OK, so its only extremists that believe this. Thats cleared that up..

I was not having a cheap shot at people who accept reality (evolution, old planet) but are religous,[/quote[
Ok now you have defined "reality". Exactly how does belief in God, outside of extremist belief in God, lend itself to be incompatible with belief in evolution or an old planet?

Where is the contradiction?

As an interesting aside, the age of the Earth was only established in the 1950's. There were many ludicrous guesses over the preceeding 70 years, including the luminary Lord Kelvin, who (after revising his initial figures downwards) eventually arrived at 24 million years old as the age of the earth. Regarding the nay sayers today (who again, I point out is almost exclusively in the realm of the evangelicals) 50 years is a short space of time for a paradigm to be accepted, see what happens in 50 years from now.

I was saying we should embrace this world view. Again, do you mind if I mention I believe in evolution, old planet without backing this up?, again, it is not relevant to my point. I can give offer scientific reasoning to back up my believe, but I didn't think it was relevant.
I an talking to skeptics after all.

Yes and my argument is simply that none of this explains why you think moderate believers in God, are thinking outside reality and need to be converted to anything?

I was talking about anybody that is not informed about the age of the planet.

Not informed or don't believe. There is an important difference.

Sorry about the word prat, it was silly. You called my reasoning wooly and said I couldn't string a coherent argument together. You attacked me.
Sorry that my style of posting isn't great, I can work the advanced posting on this computer for some reason. I'll try to work on my prose.

Your apology is accepted, your style of posting is merely confusing. I'm not quite sure exactly what you think a moderate is and why god does not lend itself to reality (where reality is your definition of evolution and a planet that is approx 2500 million years old).

samb

Why so? I don't believe in "God" myself, but I don't see how believing in a God is in any way incompatable with any scientific theory you wish to put forward.

Please explain how they are not incopatable concepts. They both lie in completely different aspects of life. It is akin to saying Christianity is not compatible with playing Rock Guitar.

psi, please read the first sentance of mine you just quoted above again. I think this should clear up your confusion.


Sorry if my first post led to this confusion, although yossie got what I meant perfectly. Just to clarrify what I was trying to say and some semantics

Extremist=6,000 year old creationists, reject neo-darwinian evolution, very little chance of engaging in discussion so no chance of ''converting them'', or anybody of any belief willing to die for thier beliefs when those beliefs are not backed up by hard evidence.

Moderate=possibly may be religious and creationist but not young earth creationists. Many, but maybe not most I don't know, may not be informed about the actuall estimation of the age of the earth or evolution etc. These people WE(assumption made about who I am communicating with) need to embrace and try not to be too condecending or patronising towards. Some people that don't believe in evolution are not extremists they are simply not informed. Unfortunately it is taught to very few in school.

I have read many of your posts and BELIEVE that our overall outlook is very similar. I agree for instance that ID is not incompatible with evolution. I still think that you were trying to intellectually bully me with your initial response and in doing so were very pedantic. You failed to understand my points (possible my fault as I have said) but instead of trying to make me clarify them politely , as I hope I now have, you attacked me. I think I deserve an apology for this.

samb

I hope it is clarified now, please read my first post again, in the light of my clarifications since I hope it is now comprehendable. Yossie point about tackling the beliefs and not the believers is an important one. Can we now discuss something else.

psiI think what makes this so unlikely is that the US will never change the constitutional amendments required to make it so. The one thing that US politicians will always stop short of is tampering with the constitution.

Yes,I hope you are right. It is worrying though, evangelicalism seems to be growing strongly in America (anyone know figures?). That 1984 quote ; He who controls the present controls the past, he who contols the past controls the future (is that right?), seems apt.
Also (I believe) irrational beliefs can propagate further if not addressed with education. I am very concerned. Have you seen that ''hear the issues'' website about political issues in the US. It is shocking the level of misinformation there was about Iraq, WMD, Al'queda etc. This is why skepticism is so important for a healthy democracy. With the military power the US has I am very worried about this growing culture of patriotism, religiousity, and knowing you are right.

This is my perception, Am I right?, In general is ignorance and irrationality growing in the US? I can't back it up but it makes for a discussion. (any figures?)

Oh, has anybody seen that film on RTE today called WE WERE SOLDIERS, that 1984 quote springs to my mind again

GuanYin

samb wrote:

psi, please read the first sentance of mine you just quoted above again. I think this should clear up your confusion.

Nope, still missing your point.

For the record, "god is not compatible with reality, where reality=earth is 2500 million years old and evolution occurs" is what I've taken from your posts.

I simply don't see how peoples personal beliefs interfere with either of these issues.

I don't see any difference in the thrust of your main point to that of a hardcore evangelist targeting those with "moderate scientific knowledge" for conversion. In fact, its pretty much exactly the same thing.

Why do you feel the need to convert people? Stand by your own convictions, argue the facts and let people make up their own minds. If they wish to be blind or ignorant of the truth, its no concern of yours.

Moderate=possibly may be religious and creationist but not young earth creationists. Many, but maybe not most I don't know, may not be informed about the actuall estimation of the age of the earth or evolution etc. These people WE(assumption made about who I am communicating with) need to embrace and try not to be too condecending or patronising towards. Some people that don't believe in evolution are not extremists they are simply not informed. Unfortunately it is taught to very few in school.

Hermm well my confusion is stemming form your definition of a moderate. Its a rather specific definition but in the context of your now-explained meaning of moderate thats fair enough.

I have read many of your posts and BELIEVE that our overall outlook is very similar.

Perhaps.

I still think that you were trying to intellectually bully me with your initial response and in doing so were very pedantic. You failed to understand my points (possible my fault as I have said) but instead of trying to make me clarify them politely , as I hope I now have, you attacked me. I think I deserve an apology for this.

As I said before, we are all entitled to our beliefs, so long as we don't expect others to adhere to them.

samb

I said that god and reality are not incompatible concepts, meaning they are compatible. I have always said this. Most of your confusion has stemmed from this misreading......the penny drops...:rolleyes:

Why do you feel the need to convert people? Stand by your own convictions, argue the facts and let people make up their own minds. If they wish to be blind or ignorant of the truth, its no concern of yours.

Yes I agree, that's why I put the word convert in inverted commas. I just meant that we should try to educate and inform moderates about the facts of evolution etc if they happen to be ignorant on such topics. This will make them less inclined to go along with extremists (for example in the case of teaching creationism in schools). As I have mentioned already, it is important to differenciate between extremists and the moderates that are just a little ignorant. Many people have a poor understanding of science and therefore do not realise how much evidence is out there. Many friends of mine believe in evolution but do not actually understand it properly. Others do not believe in it, but I would not call them extremists because they do not care enough.

its no concern of yours.
But I am very concerned about the level of ignorance on this planet, I can't help but be.

Would you consider anybody that does not accept evolution an extremist?

GuanYin

samb wrote:

I said that god and reality are not incompatible concepts, meaning they are compatible. I have always said this. Most of your confusion has stemmed from this misreading......the penny drops...:rolleyes:

Ahhhhhhhhh.I see now. Doh! My bad!

Would you consider anybody that does not accept evolution an extremist?

No, there are plenty of people who wouldn't accept evolution because its a new and foreign concept to them, not because they deny the facts.

These people would hardly be moderates though.