Creationists

[Major Nikon]

[rug]

1. Is evolution an issue in this room?

[Major Nikon]

2. Is creationism a theological issue?

[rug]

3. No. Nor have I seen anyone here argue literal creationism.

[Major Nikon]

4. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218161950

[rug]

5. That is news, not theology.

It's not a cartoon either.

[Major Nikon]

6. If it's not theology, then how is it relevant here?

I'm not sure where you're going with this entire line of interrogation. Are you seriously trying to suggest evolution and/or creationism is not a valid topic of discussion here?

[rug]

7. My mistake. I thought it was a cartoon.

[Major Nikon]

10. About as clever as "I'm rubber, you're glue"

Just sayin'

[Yorktown]

8. WHAT??? Did you just write that Creationism is NOT a theological issue?

Care to elaborate?

It's going to be mighty interesting.

[Major Nikon]

11. Only when someone else brings it up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218161950

[longship]

26. Well this is the Religion group.

And I would think that Creationism and ID is an appropriate topic since they are both religious.

People post things here in this group simply because they have religious aspects, but not necessarily because they agree with them.

Maybe that is why I find myself agreeing with some here and not others. I find discussions on topics like this interesting. And I do not think for a second that rug is a creationist.

Why would anybody claim that? Unless one maybe somebody wanted to just be a jerk about a post with which one disagrees. Instead of making an argument... Well one sees such responses all over this group.

I find the OPs in the Religion group to be very interesting. However, I find the behavior of many here to be as a personal nature and not addressing the topic in the post. That is why I am reticent to respond here. So many respond as jerks, instead of discussing religion.

But I still find religion interesting, even though I am a lifelong atheist. If only atheists had far fewer jerks.

I find many of the theists here far more pleasant than several of the atheists. One wonders, what are their objectives? And personal attacks? What can that accomplish? IMHO, nothing.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. "Literal" creationism?

What kind of bogus obfuscating is that? Worried that of course theists here have in fact argued for a variety of creationist ideas? Leaving yourself an out so you can wriggle through the canard of "literal"?

[rug]

14. Read the cartoon, Warren. You're good at that.

Now rummage through your bookmarks and pll out a discussion thread that argued that.

[Major Nikon]

17. It seems strange to me how any bible based believer can argue against literal creationism

If the creation story is bullshit, how does one decide what parts of the bible aren't bullshit? From that point the very best you can say about the bible is its very foundation is a lie.

[Starboard Tack]

20. It's a book. An anthology of books by many authors, full of stories.

Some of the stories are based on history, some are based on imagination, most are parables. Like a library, you get to choose.
Only fundamentalist extremists take every word literally and only extreme ant-theists give a shit.

[LTX]

21. Is it your personal position that Genesis 1-3 must be viewed dichotomously as either

a) literally true, or b) bullshit (or, in your alternative iteration, a lie)?

[phil89]

27. If there's no literal creation/ism

and original sin, from what is Jesus supposedly saving people? Sorry but it's yet another reason Christianity makes zero sense. evidently some aren't bothered by that.

[edhopper]

29. Original sin

is one of the more fucked up concepts in Christianity.

[LTX]

33. Not really. It's an analog to the otherwise common notion that baser instincts

need to be controlled as an adjunct to social success, and that when baser instincts do lead to socially sanctionable behavior, forgiveness coupled with introspection and rehabilitation are the predominantly preferred reactions. In short, it's an analog to the recognition that we are human.

[Major Nikon]

39. It's also a guide for the fashionable wear of fig leaves

The idea that one has to read the bible as metaphorical is nothing new and not without merit, and in that respect those chapters represent an ethical guide not unlike all sorts of non-religious and pagan ancient texts. So one can certainly derive whatever they want from it (and many do). However if one admits a religious tome is actually metaphorical, then it becomes no more of a testament to Jehovah than the Iliad is to Gorgon.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. and the persecution of homosexuals, blasphemers, etc.

[LTX]

43. Interesting. So in your view, religion is necessarily exclusive of metaphor.

Can't say I've ever encountered this notion before.

[Major Nikon]

47. If you've never heard of fundamentalism you must not get out much

And no, it's not my view.

If your view is a religious tome is inclusive of metaphor, how do you decide what is and isn't? Regardless of your answer it simply means said tome means whatever you want.

[LTX]

53. And by extension of your argument, you are effectively saying that

no reader can determine in any work of literature or poetry whether a passage is intended metaphorically, and if a given reader (arbitrarily) decides that a passage is metaphoric, the reader will then (again, arbitrarily) assign to it whatever meaning the reader plucks out of thin air. Lo these many centuries, authors have been unwittingly blind to the fundamental meaninglessness of their words.

Then again, http://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/keysar/1_jml89.pdf

[Major Nikon]

56. Yet you have decided what is metaphorical

[LTX]

59. Of course. As you do.

I tend to agree with the proposition that we are, at bottom, creatures of metaphor. It is embedded in the pattern making by which we determine and attribute meaning. We are remarkably good at the creation, expression, and understanding of metaphor, and as discussed in the article I linked, there is evidence of a functional equivalence between literal and metaphorical interpretations when we communicate.

Science, philosophy, and theology all communicate in metaphor. And in my view, this methodology is intrinsic and necessary as a consequence of the manner in which our human computers operate.

(I have also edited my post 53, in case there was some misunderstanding about my point.)

[Major Nikon]

61. True

...and I've decided the entire idea of a divine entity is nothing more than a metaphor to explain the creation of everything.

[LTX]

62. That's something we are pretty close to full agreement on.

[LTX]

32. Well, I'm a Jew, so I view those chapters differently.

But I will add that reading Genesis 1-3 as a literal recitation of creation is not a prerequisite to the concept of original sin.

[Major Nikon]

35. I reckon it's kinda like being pregnant

It's either literally true or it isn't. There doesn't seem to be room for a 3rd option. YMMV.

[LTX]

37. So is it your view that there is no truth to (or in) literature, poetry, and metaphors?

[Major Nikon]

40. I didn't say any or no truth, I said literal truth

Anyone could certainly recite completely incoherent gibberish and you'd be free to derive whatever you wished from it. That's not the same as literal truth.

[LTX]

42. I'm not well versed in the distinction between truth and literal truth.

Maybe you can expand on this notion a bit.

[Major Nikon]

45. It's likely you either can't understand or you're being obtuse

Either way there's little point in expanding

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. It's a theological and political issue; 41% of Americans think humans did not evolve

from non-human life; and 44% are absolutely/very certain Adam and Eve were real people.



http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

55% think creationism should be taught in public schools, along with evolution and intelligent design. 19% think only creationism should be taught. So over half of Americans want to ignore the first amendment of their constitution and teach an obviously wrong myth of one religion in public schools.

[F4lconF16]

55. That is utterly terrifying.

Had not seen that before, thanks.

[cbayer]

57. It is terrifying and the main reason why we need to distinguish between

the different groups when it comes to this.

[rug]

65. I'll concede that but the position caricatured by the cartoon is senseless theologically

but potent politically.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Yes it is.

[rug]

15. Really? Post the threads opposing it.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Here ya go rug

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=194462

Now wriggle out of it. I suggest the wormhole you created with "literal" creationism.

[cleanhippie]

34. That seems to have shut him up quick.

+1

[rug]

67. Once again an inaccurate post.

Keep trying.

[rug]

66. One hardly needs to wiggle out of a shoelace.

That post bears no resemblance to the literal understanding of creation lampooned in the cartoon.

What you fail to grasp, most likely deliberately, is that there is a huge difference between believing there is a Creator, which most religions hold, and believing a particular story, be it Eden or turtles, is the literal truth of creation.

Now you can return to yours.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Right on queue.

Rug: Is evolution an issue in this room?

Me: Yes it is.

Rug: Really? Post the threads opposing it.

Me: Here ya go rug.
Now wriggle out of it. I suggest the wormhole you created with "literal" creationism.

Rug: One hardly needs to wiggle out of a shoelace.

That post bears no resemblance to the literal understanding of creation lampooned in the cartoon.

[rug]

69. It's amusing when you misuse cue.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Oh, good point. Thanks rug!

See how that works?

[hrmjustin]

9. ok.

[cbayer]

18. Yeah, creationists are stupid. We are all pretty much opposed to them.

Something we can all come together about, and that's a good thing, right?

[Major Nikon]

19. I wouldn't call them stupid anymore than I'd call any other believer stupid

If anything they are at least consistent in their support of their beliefs.

Creationist ideas can be harmful when presented in opposition to or in lieu of legitimate science, and in that respect those ideas deserve marginalization.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we". Not all DUers reject those ideas and I suspect even fewer still would be in favor of marginalization. In the general public the voices that oppose presenting creationism in school certainly aren't loud enough, which suggests most people at best are apathetic.

[cbayer]

23. There is a difference.

A creationist believes something despite evidence to the contrary. A believer believes something based on faith and without proof, but there is not evidence to the contrary.

This is a critical difference and the inability to see it leads to blind prejudice against all who you consider "believers".

Have you met any creationists here on DU? If they are here, they are pretty quiet, but since just being a believer can lead to ridicule and being demeaned, one might not blame someone for staying in the closet.

But I really don't think there are fundamentalists who believe in creationism here. This board is not the general public and, as I noted above, treating it as such is a reflection of blind prejudice.

Of course, sometimes one has to make others smaller in order to feel big, and there is lots of that going around here.

[trotsky]

24. "sometimes one has to make others smaller in order to feel big"

[trotsky]

25. This warrants another response, to point out your error.

"A creationist believes something despite evidence to the contrary. A believer believes something based on faith and without proof, but there is not evidence to the contrary. "

Ah, if only it were that simple, eh? First off, creationists ARE believers. You don't get to exclude them by decree. They believe in a god, and in creationism based on their faith despite other evidence. Their view is internally consistent - they claim that the evidence is not applicable, fake, planted by Satan, etc.

But then again, those whom you consider "believers" ALSO reject other evidence. It isn't a matter of there not BEING any "evidence to the contrary," there's lots of it against gods. Like the problem of evil. Or the internally contradictory features of their postulated god. Etc., etc. But believers choose to ignore or reject it, saying it's not applicable, false, etc.

In reality, this is a big gray ball of mush instead of the black-and-white extremes you prefer to see. Religion helps enable false beliefs, creating a system in which not only is it acceptable to believe something despite evidence to the contrary, but actually admirable to do so.

And we wonder how the Republicans can fool so many people...

[edhopper]

30. Isn't there plenty of evidence

to the contrary of the Nativity?
Are believers in the Nativity ignorant?

[trotsky]

31. Plenty of evidence contrary to the notion that someone can die...

and come back to life 36 hours later, too. But.... MIRACLE.

Which is oddly the same explanation given by creationists when they encounter evidence contrary to their beliefs.

[phil89]

36. She once told

me that believing in fairies is as valid as not believing in fairies... So there's not much use trying to reason with her. She's firmly planted in the mindset that if something can't be disproven then it makes total sense to believe in it.

[trotsky]

38. At that point you know that reason is pretty much out the window...

and the only thing that matters is no one's precious snowflake beliefs get questioned. That's a dangerous place for society to go, I think.

[Major Nikon]

44. There isn't a difference in that respect

Both have evidence to the contrary and both simply explain it by saying with god anything is possible.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stephen-hawking-confirms-non-existence-god-by-offering-scientific-proof-1467528

This is a critical difference and the inability to see it leads to blind prejudice against all who you consider "believers".
...
Of course, sometimes one has to make others smaller in order to feel big, and there is lots of that going around here.

You're the one calling them stupid, so either you are describing yourself or you are making a strawman by misrepresenting my position. I can very much differentiate between stupid ideas and stupid people. YMMV.

[cbayer]

46. Wait, Steven Hawking has confirmed the non-existence of god??

Well that changes everything,

except that he hasn't provided any evidence at all. He has only said it is possible to disprove god and that he doesn't believe in god.

Do you really think there is evidence? Provide it.

Yes, I think those that deny clear scientific evidence and hold onto beliefs that fly in the face of that evidence are stupid. OK, maybe more accurately they have stupid ideas, if that makes you feel better.

I don't think much better of those who claim to have evidence of something not existing when no such evidence is available.

YMMV.

[Major Nikon]

48. So do you have evidence creationism isn't possible?

You do understand your argument works in both cases, yes?

If you think that such beliefs qualify people as stupid, that's on you. I'm not of that opinion and I'll thank you to stop projecting that on me.

[trotsky]

49. Brilliant exposure of the double standard. n/t

[cbayer]

50. Because I believe in the theory of evolution and have been convinced

of it by using my own rigorous scientific method of inquiry, I think there is lots of evidence that literal creationism did not occur.

Do you think you have evidence that creationism is possible?

BTW, you can drop the silly argument about "stupid". I was using it in a colloquial and pejorative sense, not a literal one.

Of course, it would really be a stretch to say that the character in your cartoon is not being portrayed as incredibly stupid. I mean, he can't even speak english correctly. But don't let me project that idea back on you.

So let me re-state my initial position since your literalism is getting in the way of our discussion.

Creationism is a stupid idea. We are all pretty much opposed to those who reject evolution and embrace creationism, right?

Something we can all come together about, and that's a good thing, right?

[Major Nikon]

52. You can say the same about the existence or lack thereof in a supreme being

So what is the difference you're claiming?

BTW, you can drop the silly argument about "stupid".

It was your argument and hasn't made much sense from the beginning, so no worries there.

[cbayer]

54. You were the one who posted the cartoon of somebody obviously being portrayed as stupid.

You can own it or "project" it back on me.

Ok, now to the point.

There is no evidence to support either the claim that a supreme being exists or the claim that a supreme being doesn't exist.

One of those things is likely true, but anyone who makes a definitive claim on either side is foolish, because they have no evidence.

On the other hand, evolution and creationism can not both be true. There is loads of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creationism.

There is the difference. Any questions?

[Major Nikon]

58. I thought you wanted to drop this

As it's a pretty stupid idea, I'm going to do just that. You can continue on your own if you want.

On the other hand, evolution and creationism can not both be true. There is loads of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creationism.

There's also loads of scientific evidence for the creation of the universe other than the big sky daddy model and both can not be true. The evidence for the big sky daddy theory of the universe is the same as the evidence for creationism.

[cbayer]

60. Are you dropping the whole conversation or just the stupid part?

It wasn't clear from your post.

Anyway, I've never seen anyone promote the "big sky daddy model" of creation here, so I'm not sure what you are on about. Is there someone here that has posited that notion as true and has denied the big bang theory?

How about what there may have been or not been before the big bang? Do you feel you have loads of scientific evidence for what that may or may not have been? How about things that may exist beyond this universe? How's your evidence file going for that one?

Clearly there are things for which we have lots of evidence and taking a stand against unfounded belief when it comes to those things makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is taking a stand when you don't have any evidence.

[Major Nikon]

63. This is your assertion, which I contradicted

There is a difference.

A creationist believes something despite evidence to the contrary. A believer believes something based on faith and without proof, but there is not evidence to the contrary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=199953

I'm no longer going to go off on endless tangents.

I don't agree with your assertion and I've already explained why.

[cbayer]

64. Ok, so are creationists stupid or not?

(I keed, I keed)

Nice talking to you. See you next time.

[trotsky]

51. It is interesting to note the contrast here.

Others on DU have called religious beliefs "delusions" and you've viciously attacked them for suggesting they are declaring all believers mentally ill. (Which they didn't, but hey, that was your accusation.)

Now you're on record saying anyone holding "onto beliefs that fly in the face of" evidence is STUPID.

Wow. Epic. Others aren't allowed to say someone is mistaken, but you feel perfectly justified in calling them stupid.

[Gothmog]

28. Great cartoon