Creationism sub-thread

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:39 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, you don't have to have a 100% bad outcome ratio to make something dangerous.

No, but you have to actually be able to demonstrate that it's the thing you're saying is "dangerous" that leads to the bad outcome, and not some other thing entirely.


And again, what is your alternative theory? If you have an alternative cause, sure, bring it up, we'll consider it.

But if no alternative exists, then what's the problem?

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:You have ridiculously strong links between the three elements of fundamentalist christianity, creationism, and anti-LGBT issues.
You have a local bias. Are Russians fundamentalist? Are Catholics? Catholics dwarf Evangelical Christians, and they are not LGBT friendly, despite the Popes overtures. And how you formulate the questions changes the results when you talk to people about these issues. I think Creationists or Evangelicals are misguided, but they have a lot of fellow travelers in the general population that believe quietly, and lie when you ask them.


None of those are creationists, fundamentalists, nor am I aware of them running re-education camps for LGBT folks.

I have already acknowledged that other causes for anti-gay behavior exist. That does not, in any way, mitigate the obvious frequency with which anti-gay attitudes are expressed among creationist organizations at an institutional level. That's a connection. Obviously. If not, what possible evidence would you consider sufficient?

commodorejohn wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:It would, at the absolute least, make it explicit that creationism provides a more conducive seedbed for that level of homophobia, though.

All it indicates is that people who have a tendency toward being involved with gay-conversion camps also have a tendency to favor creationism. It indicates nothing whatsoever about any kind of causal link between the two, no matter how hard you want it to, and it is absolutely trivial to conjecture possible root causes for the simultaneous exhibition of these tendencies in some people that do not involve a causal link.


And...you're dismissing things like their own claimed casual link regarding their OWN ideology. What, exactly, do you want in terms of a casual link? You have correlation. You have it being taught as doctrine. What further link would you expect from an ideology?

morriswalters wrote:While I agree that young earth creationists make poor scientists, a part of me says, so what? What percentage of the overall population are scientists of any type? And people believe all types of screwy things, that ghosts are real, the CIA blew up the twin towers, and the moon landings didn't happen. And hundreds of other examples of various types of silliness of varying levels of hazard, including scientists.


So, they're actively attempting to metasticize this belief. Look, we all probably accept that the Amish community is unlikely to produce a high quantity of software engineers. But...they aren't gonna come, piss in your cheerios, and try to destroy CS as a whole. They simply are uninvolved. And society at large, is okay with the Amish community as a result.

Creationists are not like that. They keep trying to jack control of textbooks to fill them with crap. This is explicitly an active effort to attack our educational system, and dismantle current knowledge and understanding. That's bad. Again, this should be obvious.

Cradarc wrote:Whizbang, you're making the argument that a belief is harmful because it leads to behavior that goes against what you believe is morally good. I think we're drawing awfully close to the subject of another thread that wanted to ban religion.


This is not merely a coincidental behavioral change. It's direct, intentional opposition of the meddling variety. It's not merely their own choices that are concerning, it's the interfering with others.

commodorejohn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:There are religious fundamentalists, creationists, biblical literalists in this thread. That's why the discussion started in the first place.

Eh? Unless I missed something, the opinions being expressed here relate solely to the idea of whether or not it's cool to label ideas as "dangerous" because you disagree with them and/or don't like the people you think are representative of their adherents.


You're veering wildly into relativism here.

Look, if someone doesn't get a proper scientific education, but instead, receives religious indoctrination, they will be objectively less capable of performing scientific work as a result. Taking a college level biology course without having *any* previous actual biology education suuuuucked.

This is not merely about disagreement or dislike. It's about the results. Being taught wrong information by the truckload will have bad results. This should not be difficult to see....

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're veering wildly into relativism here.

Look, if someone doesn't get a proper scientific education, but instead, receives religious indoctrination, they will be objectively less capable of performing scientific work as a result. Taking a college level biology course without having *any* previous actual biology education suuuuucked.

This is not merely about disagreement or dislike. It's about the results. Being taught wrong information by the truckload will have bad results. This should not be difficult to see....

imagine taking a college level biology course, not only without having any previous biology education.....but having had all of your formative years filled with education that DIRECTLY contradicts ALL of established biology.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, they're actively attempting to metasticize this belief. Look, we all probably accept that the Amish community is unlikely to produce a high quantity of software engineers. But...they aren't gonna come, piss in your cheerios, and try to destroy CS as a whole. They simply are uninvolved. And society at large, is okay with the Amish community as a result.

Creationists are not like that. They keep trying to jack control of textbooks to fill them with crap. This is explicitly an active effort to attack our educational system, and dismantle current knowledge and understanding. That's bad. Again, this should be obvious.
Yes to the first. And I tried to teach all my kids to be Democrats and Liberals. We all know what Ann Coulter thinks about that. As to Evangelicals trying to hijack the educational system, you again are correct. I can't help that you don't like one man one vote. This isn't a meritocracy. Idiots get a place at the table. Create enough idiots and you control the game. Is there a point behind this somewhere?

On the Amish. I'm happy you think they are okay. I don't care about them one way or the other. And I'm uncertain that you should have to be consulted about it. And society at large is to this point not on board with classifying Young Earth Creationists as dangerous. You seem to live somewhere different than I do. I can tell you for instance that there is a large plurality in my state that would be happy seeing gays go away, and gay marriage would fail if it went to the ballot. Just like it did in that Liberal bastion of California. Again I don't disagree that YEC's are fruitcakes and shouldn't be let out without a leash. But if you start picking and choosing favorites remember that they can return the favor.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:34 pm UTC

The fate of this stupid world interests me because I have the misfortune to still live on it.

So yes, if idiots are intent on controlling everything, I am interested in stopping them. I am not overly concerned that my attention will garner theirs. I'm an atheistic non-republican who moved to the city and got a gay roommate. I suspect they may already disapprove.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:01 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:imagine taking a college level biology course, not only without having any previous biology education.....but having had all of your formative years filled with education that DIRECTLY contradicts ALL of established biology.
And I want to emphasize, this is a genuine problem; if your parents have taught you creationism as a child -- and you grow up into someone who wants to explore biology -- you are now at a significant disadvantage. It's like trying to become a mathematician when you were raised to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Everyone else is three steps ahead of you; before you can catch up, you need to jettison everything you thought you knew.

And while teaching your children that 2 + 2 = 5 probably isn't child abuse -- especially not if you genuinely believe it's true -- it's definitely not in your child's best interest, and almost certainly will prove to be a disruptive, if not dangerous, thing to teach your kids.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

At a certain degree, keeping your child from education does become child abuse.

Truancy and/or educational neglect would be the cause. A parent that is merely sufficiently uncaring of their child's educational well being can have their child taken away, eventually, for that.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:15 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:imagine taking a college level biology course, not only without having any previous biology education.....but having had all of your formative years filled with education that DIRECTLY contradicts ALL of established biology.
And I want to emphasize, this is a genuine problem; if your parents have taught you creationism as a child -- and you grow up into someone who wants to explore biology -- you are now at a significant disadvantage. It's like trying to become a mathematician when you were raised to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Everyone else is three steps ahead of you; before you can catch up, you need to jettison everything you thought you knew.

And while teaching your children that 2 + 2 = 5 probably isn't child abuse -- especially not if you genuinely believe it's true -- it's definitely not in your child's best interest, and almost certainly will prove to be a disruptive, if not dangerous, thing to teach your kids.

I vacillate frequently between feeling like creationist indoctrination is child abuse or not...intentionally raising your child to be disadvantaged likely qualifies as child abuse...but...still...is it?

lying to people isn't generally considered abusive. unless you're lying to them to make them not realize it's abuse. it's hard.


but to the creationist disadvantaged child in the previous hypothetical....it's not just teaching the child that 2+2=5...it's teaching your child that 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is also a defining characteristic of you as a person, 2+2=5 is a defining aspect of your personal relationship with god, and questioning that will result in eternal damnation in a world of hellfire. if it were just 2+2=5, that can be easily corrected by proving otherwise.....but.....2+2=5 +damnation +love of your god is dependent on you believing that +any counter evidence to 2+2=5 = work of the devil trying to tempt you from salvation.......that shit.....that shit you can't just PROVE wrong.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Cradarc » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:You really need to read the threads you're participating in, and try to have some familiarity with the other people participating in it.
There are religious fundamentalists, creationists, biblical literalists in this thread. That's why the discussion started in the first place.

I admit I didn't read the context from the original thread that this one is an offshoot of. I just did, and this is what I gleaned:

People were talking about marriage. Someone brought up Adam and Eve as the first marriage. Mathmannix said something about Adam and Eve being married by God and being genetically pure so there's no incest. People asked him/her for scientific evidence. He/she provided evidence in the form of links to creationist websites with the disclaimer that he/she did not come up with those explanations. Then things blew up and there came an obvious attitude of condescension among some of the posters*. Mathmannix soon left the conversation.
The discussion gradually evolved into people qualifying other people's statements because they were too extreme and/or insulting.

*You appear to be totally fine insulting creationists, to the extent that labeling them mentally handicapped is an insult to mentally disabled people.

Presumably, the conversation then moved to this thread. Mathmannix made a single post to this thread:
Spoiler:
Why is there so much hatred for creationism and creationists? Okay, I get it, you think creationism is a bunch of malarkey, and it doesn't fit with your personal non-theistic worldview. So we disagree. But this seems to go way beyond that, to saying that people are foolish or worse by choosing to believe in creation. Or that it's child abuse to teach your (or other peoples') children your worldview. I don't know if it's a case of association fallacy ("Hitler ate sugar") or ad hominem attack or something else.

I understand that creation science / "intelligent design" has been labeled as pseudoscience because it can't be backed up with testable hypotheses. I'm not trying to argue this, even if I automatically flinch at the term "pseudoscience" because of its fully-intended negative implication.

But there are many creationists who are scientists, and just because you believe in creation and/or God before anything else, as your fundamental axiom of the universe, doesn't mean you can't be a scientist. Or does it?


It is obvious that Mathmannix understands that creation science has no place in any accepted field of science. He/she wants to know why creationism is so passionately attacked even though it, intrinsically, is simply a different philosophical view.
I believe the dominating argument is that creationist beliefs lead people to do things that are harmful and abusive toward others. I agree that does seem to be the case, at least according to what we are exposed to in the media. However, there were several posts on the old thread (and on the this one) that qualified the claim. If anything, Mathmannix is a counterexample on their own. Or do we think he/she is dangerous and should be excluded from the xkcd community?

Earlier, I posed these questions:
How do we reach out to those that vehemently distrust science?
How do we show people that science is not about imposing opinions, but about the process of continually learning and refining how we predict and interact with the universe?

To which nobody seems interested in talking about. IMO, this is far more important than arguing about how "dangerous" a particular set of beliefs is. We don't need to prove "fundamentalist creationism" is evil to do something about the negative ramifications it has on society. The conflict is evident, even if the root cause is uncertain. How do we go about fixing this vice in our society?

Ironically the attitude implied in some of the posters is reminiscent of the attitude adopted by fundamentalist Christians. People pour so much effort into proving the other side wrong and reinforcing their moral/logical high ground that they miss out on the fact that the other side is just as human.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The fate of this stupid world interests me because I have the misfortune to still live on it.

So yes, if idiots are intent on controlling everything, I am interested in stopping them. I am not overly concerned that my attention will garner theirs. I'm an atheistic non-republican who moved to the city and got a gay roommate. I suspect they may already disapprove.
So now we finally arrive. You are interested in stopping them. Okay. I wasn't worried about what YEC's think about me, I worried about creating tools I can't control that can turn about and be used against me. Not that I believe that it can or will happen. Just so you know. The idiots already control everything.
The Great Hippo wrote:Everyone else is three steps ahead of you; before you can catch up, you need to jettison everything you thought you knew.
Poor children face that problem, in spades. Fix the fixable and quit looking for a new problem. I've seen no indication that all Evangelical Christians abuse their children, nor that they don't love them. Or YEC's for that matter. If they follow SOP's for the type of belief's they have they won't want their children to be biologists, or for that matter any field which would challenge those beliefs. If their children decide to not follow in their parents footsteps they will catch up. Having a fouled up belief system isn't abuse, it's a product of the evolution of societies. You fix it by doing what we are doing, educating.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:48 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:
It is obvious that Mathmannix understands that creation science has no place in any accepted field of science. He/she wants to know why creationism is so passionately attacked even though it, intrinsically, is simply a different philosophical view.


belief that god loves you and wants you to be happy is a philosophical view

belief that the world was created in 6 days, about 5,000 years ago, as it exists today, and was populated by a single pair of humans......is not a philosophical view, it's a direct and willful rejection of physically verifiable evidence.

philosophy is basically "this is how I see things".....creationism is making an ACTUAL statement about how things ACTUALLY are, and it's making that statement AS FACT, in the face of OVERWHELMING amounts of contrary evidence.

which is why creationism is passionately attacked anywhere other than in a creationist group....because it's willful ignorance and rejection of simple observable facts.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Whizbang » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:49 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Ironically the attitude implied in some of the posters is reminiscent of the attitude adopted by fundamentalist Christians. People pour so much effort into proving the other side wrong and reinforcing their moral/logical high ground that they miss out on the fact that the other side is just as human.


Because it seems to be effective? Because many ex-christians/theists claim they de-converted due to discourse with and exposure to the arguments, over time. Few are de-converted from a single argument or debate, but over time these interactions percolate in the brain and one day the person realizes they don't believe what they used to believe. The reason why the methods and attitude seem similar, at least on the surface, is because, essentially, it works. If it didn't work, no one would do it. Religions live through conversion. Their techniques have been perfected over time. Just because an opposing side adopts similar strategies doesn't mean they are "just as bad", it just means that they are trying to reach the same target audience.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Ironically the attitude implied in some of the posters is reminiscent of the attitude adopted by fundamentalist Christians. People pour so much effort into proving the other side wrong and reinforcing their moral/logical high ground that they miss out on the fact that the other side is just as human.
This could only be ironic if you don't care at all about facts or the content of the opposing views.

The fact that two sides use similar techniques doesn't tell us anything about the relative merits of their positions. If police detain you against your will because you kidnapped and detained an innocent person against their will, it's not an example of police being "just as bad" as kidnappers.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:01 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:It is obvious that Mathmannix understands that creation science has no place in any accepted field of science. He/she wants to know why creationism is so passionately attacked even though it, intrinsically, is simply a different philosophical view.
Because it calls itself creation science.

You can't argue that you're simply espousing a different philosophical view while also claiming that you're espousing the same philosophical view. Again, you can't have it both ways: Either you're making testable hypotheses (and testing them), or you're not -- if you're not, you're not doing science. Calling what you do science is deeply misleading (if not willfully deceptive).

If creationists basically all said "Okay, okay -- fine, this isn't science. We just want to teach our children magical stories about how the world began", I really doubt there'd be this much hostility.

Also:
Cardarc wrote:How do we reach out to those that vehemently distrust science?
It's very hard to do this! Especially when the people who vehemently distrust science also claim to be doing science. How do you reach out to someone who believes all science that invalidates their beliefs is wrong -- but all science (or pseudoscience) which validates their beliefs is right?

Whatever our solution looks like, it's probably going to be found in the direction of 'teach people what science actually is', and 'teach people to think more critically about things'.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:26 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:*You appear to be totally fine insulting creationists, to the extent that labeling them mentally handicapped is an insult to mentally disabled people.


I am indeed fine with insulting creationists, I'll cop to that. Some take a more concilatory approach than I, and I suspect it would be unfair to them to use my viewpoint to characterize all participants in the conversation, including gmalivuk.

That said, it is correct that few people outright support creationism. This is to be expected, as this a venue that tend to be a bit longer on scientists, and a bit shorter on religious fundamentalists. Similar patterns will be clear when discussing faith healing, or climate change, or whatever else.

Mathmannix's question was answered. Pretty emphatically in the negative. Even those who are perhaps less disapproving of creationism that I accept that creationism is inherently an anti-scientific viewpoint.

If anything, Mathmannix is a counterexample on their own. Or do we think he/she is dangerous and should be excluded from the xkcd community?


Literally nobody has suggested excluding people from the forum on this basis.

I'm curious why you think this is the logical conclusion. How would it help?

morriswalters wrote:So now we finally arrive. You are interested in stopping them. Okay. I wasn't worried about what YEC's think about me, I worried about creating tools I can't control that can turn about and be used against me. Not that I believe that it can or will happen. Just so you know. The idiots already control everything.


Of course. Once you've determined that something is a significant threat, stopping it or mitigating it is a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, plenty of idiots in power. However, not all idiots are equal, and that's kind of a rubbish reason to just do nothing and ignore problems.

Whizbang wrote:Because it seems to be effective? Because many ex-christians/theists claim they de-converted due to discourse with and exposure to the arguments, over time. Few are de-converted from a single argument or debate, but over time these interactions percolate in the brain and one day the person realizes they don't believe what they used to believe. The reason why the methods and attitude seem similar, at least on the surface, is because, essentially, it works. If it didn't work, no one would do it. Religions live through conversion. Their techniques have been perfected over time. Just because an opposing side adopts similar strategies doesn't mean they are "just as bad", it just means that they are trying to reach the same target audience.


Precisely. I grew up in that environment and I made it out. Granted, that's 1 for 6 of the kids, so not a great success rate, but...small sample set and all that.

But it's unlikely that I'd have ever changed my mind had I not even encountered arguments against it. You can't force logic, but logic is mostly useless without data to work with.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Because it seems to be effective? Because many ex-christians/theists claim they de-converted due to discourse with and exposure to the arguments, over time. Few are de-converted from a single argument or debate, but over time these interactions percolate in the brain and one day the person realizes they don't believe what they used to believe. The reason why the methods and attitude seem similar, at least on the surface, is because, essentially, it works. If it didn't work, no one would do it. Religions live through conversion. Their techniques have been perfected over time. Just because an opposing side adopts similar strategies doesn't mean they are "just as bad", it just means that they are trying to reach the same target audience.

Yeah, I can point to specific posters from this board (in this thread actually), who over the last few years helped deprogram me from the "being gay is a sin, democrats are leeches" etc. mindset that I absorbed from my Midwest environment (not blaming my parents, they actually did a lot to make me a critical thinker, but Midwest is what Midwest is).

There's a lot to be said for the efficacy of simply creating an environment where bigotry or anti-scientific thought isn't the norm.

If creationists basically all said "Okay, okay -- fine, this isn't science. We just want to teach our children magical stories about how the world began", I really doubt there'd be this much hostility.

Also, if they stopped trying to teach other people's kids their fairy tale, and working to get thinkers they disagree with removed from the history books (ex. Oscar Romero and Thomas-Fucking-Jefferson).

Fuck, even reducing their activities the still-horrific Quiverfull strategy would be an improvement over what they're doing now.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:02 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:There's a lot to be said for the efficacy of simply creating an environment where bigotry or anti-scientific thought isn't the norm.
Yep. For the most part that is the educational system we have in place. Particularly the higher educational systems, Universities and Collages.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, plenty of idiots in power. However, not all idiots are equal, and that's kind of a rubbish reason to just do nothing and ignore problems.
And this is a misstatement of my position. But I certainly won't kill any possible dialog in it's track by calling people dangerous, particularly since it isn't true. LGBT hating isn't exclusive to YEC's, neither is racism, or sexism. And the world isn't composed of people who want biology degrees or geology degrees. And the way some push science it almost becomes cult like.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And this is a misstatement of my position. But I certainly won't kill any possible dialog in it's track by calling people dangerous, particularly since it isn't true. LGBT hating isn't exclusive to YEC's, neither is racism, or sexism. And the world isn't composed of people who want biology degrees or geology degrees. And the way some push science it almost becomes cult like.


A bad thing does not have to be exclusive to one group to be dangerous....why do we keep circling back around to this?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Cradarc wrote:*You appear to be totally fine insulting creationists, to the extent that labeling them mentally handicapped is an insult to mentally disabled people.
I am indeed fine with insulting creationists, I'll cop to that. Some take a more concilatory approach than I, and I suspect it would be unfair to them to use my viewpoint to characterize all participants in the conversation, including gmalivuk.
I am also totally 100% fine with insulting creationists, for the record.

Which is rather independent from the fact that I'm not fine with using "mentally handicapped" as a generic insult for people who engage in wrong and dangerous thinking. Cradarc seems to think that I must be extra fine with insulting creationists, if it goes "to the extent" that certain insults are problematic because they're ableist rather than because they're directed at creationists. But that's nonsense on Cradarc's part, because I'm also opposed to calling something "retarded" (on the basis that it's insulting to mentally disabled people) even when the thing being called that isn't actually that bad.

(Whether or not you were in fact treating it as a generic insult is beside the point, so we don't need to get into that again here.)

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And this is a misstatement of my position. But I certainly won't kill any possible dialog in it's track by calling people dangerous, particularly since it isn't true. LGBT hating isn't exclusive to YEC's, neither is racism, or sexism. And the world isn't composed of people who want biology degrees or geology degrees. And the way some push science it almost becomes cult like.
A bad thing does not have to be exclusive to one group to be dangerous....why do we keep circling back around to this?
"Killing people isn't exclusive to murderers, because sometimes non-murderers accidentally kill people too. Therefore we should stop criticizing murderers for all the killing that they do."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:"Killing people isn't exclusive to murderers, because sometimes non-murderers accidentally kill people too. Therefore we should stop criticizing murderers for all the killing that they do."
Criticize them all you want. I don't talk most of my living relatives over this topic. Neither do I demonize them. They're stupid and ill informed. But they aren't dangerous. Or at least anymore dangerous than me or you. Numbers make them a force.

Probably the most dangerous thing pound for pound is a fusion weapon, brought to us by the marvels of science. I asked this before, should I treat physicists as dangerous, unthinking fools, for giving all those dangerous people a weapon that can destroy all of us.

Edit

This by the way is a marvelous rhetorical device. Compare them to murders, without comparing them. How do I answer that?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:"Killing people isn't exclusive to murderers, because sometimes non-murderers accidentally kill people too. Therefore we should stop criticizing murderers for all the killing that they do."
Criticize them all you want. I don't talk most of my living relatives over this topic. Neither do I demonize them. They're stupid and ill informed. But they aren't dangerous. Or at least anymore dangerous than me or you. Numbers make them a force.

Probably the most dangerous thing pound for pound is a fusion weapon, brought to us by the marvels of science. I asked this before, should I treat physicists as dangerous, unthinking fools, for giving all those dangerous people a weapon that can destroy all of us.

Edit

This by the way is a marvelous rhetorical device. Compare them to murders, without comparing them. How do I answer that?


Anyone can be dangerous. Not everyone acts dangerously. Yes, you can I could easily harm others, if we chose to do so. That is unimportant. What is important is who chooses to do so, and why.

It's just an analogy. It's a pretty straightforward device.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Cradarc » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:42 am UTC

Stupid/harmful people usually do not choose to be stupid/harmful. In their eyes, they are in the right and in the minority. If your argument consists of saying "your position is stupid and harmful to society", they will simply cast you as a hater and ignore you. The more you "persecute" them, the stronger they hold on to their beliefs. It's like force-feeding a junk food addict vegetables. Sure, some of them will realize vegetables taste great and give up their past diet, but many would grow more resentful, hindering future efforts.

I am disturbed by those who are completely fine with insulting people (presumably) in order to change their beliefs. Lamblasting someone's position works great in a formal debate, but it does jackshit against those that don't subscribe to reason as their primary authority. Lamblasting people who hold a particular belief is not productive in any situation. Anybody who is totally fine with insulting people because of the beliefs they hold is more likely self-righteous than concerned.

To effectively persuade someone, you need to first understand their paradigm, and not just on a superficial sense. This is the irony I am talking about. Creationists understand evolution science at a really superficial level and attack scientists using the strawman. How much do you truly understand the mindset of a fundamental creationist such that you can generalize them as stupid people? Is Mathmannix stupid? If I hadn't gone back and read the posts on the other thread, I wouldn't have even known he was a young earth creationist.
If you want to eliminate creationism, you have to do it from within. You have to build your argument on their values instead of your own.

Tyndmyr wrote:A bad thing does not have to be exclusive to one group to be dangerous....why do we keep circling back around to this?

Because this thread revolves around criticizing one group for a bad thing that is not exclusive to that group. It's like focusing on the race of a criminal rather than the crime that was committed.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:28 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:I am disturbed by those who are completely fine with insulting people (presumably) in order to change their beliefs.
I sincerely doubt anyone in this thread who is fine with insulting creationists believes doing so will cause creationists to change their mind. Rather, I suspect they're fine with insulting creationists because they suspect that creationists will remain creationists regardless of whether or not you insult them.
Cradarc wrote:If you want to eliminate creationism, you have to do it from within. You have to build your argument on their values instead of your own.
What if they value dogma over critical thinking? Religious principle over their children's lives? Ignorance over knowledge? Are those the values I should build my counter-arguments on?

If all you're saying is that to eliminate creationism, I need to understand where creationists are coming from -- I agree. If you're saying that to eliminate creationism, I need to engage in the same sort of fallacies that creationists do -- I wholly disagree.

Creationism is a silly belief. It's like believing in Santa Claus -- or a flat earth -- or that the government did 9/11. I can understand why people believe these things -- but if I want to convince them to stop believing, I can't do it by making the same mistakes they're making.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:45 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A bad thing does not have to be exclusive to one group to be dangerous....why do we keep circling back around to this?
Because this thread revolves around criticizing one group for a bad thing that is not exclusive to that group. It's like focusing on the race of a criminal rather than the crime that was committed.
No, it's not like that at all.

It's more like criticizing neonazis for antisemitic hate crimes. Sure, antisemitic hate crimes are also committed by people who are not neonazis, but that doesn't mean the criticism is invalid.

Or to bring up an analogy I've used in the police thread, it's like criticizing cigarettes for causing cancer, even though they obviously aren't the only thing that causes cancer.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:12 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:To effectively persuade someone, you need to first understand their paradigm, and not just on a superficial sense. This is the irony I am talking about. Creationists understand evolution science at a really superficial level and attack scientists using the strawman. How much do you truly understand the mindset of a fundamental creationist such that you can generalize them as stupid people? Is Mathmannix stupid? If I hadn't gone back and read the posts on the other thread, I wouldn't have even known he was a young earth creationist.
If you want to eliminate creationism, you have to do it from within. You have to build your argument on their values instead of your own.

you're doing a thing that most creationists and other evangelicals do all the time....you're assuming that atheists, or anyone who is hyper critical of religion or YEC, or whatever, isn't familiar with what goes in to making a religious fundamentalist or creationist or what have you.....

GENERALLY it's QUITE the opposite. you'll rarely find someone more familiar with the bible than an atheist....especially atheists in the US....because we were almost all raised in religious households....MANY in creationist/fundamentalist households, and quite a few in outright cults. so, we can, intimately describe to you the mindset of those groups BECAUSE many of us were in them. and the way most people got out was by actually reading the manuals we were given (the bible) with a critical eye, and actually studying what was being said and parsing that though the tools of logic, reason, and science and realizing that the concepts and beliefs, are in fact, stupid as hell.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:24 pm UTC

To effectively persuade someone, you need to first understand their paradigm, and not just on a superficial sense. This is the irony I am talking about.

I do not believe this, at all. There are people I know who used to subscribe to some form of creationism, and do no longer. They all fit in the same mold, which I am sure occurs more widely.

They are from a strongly religious background, with few interactions outside of that group. Then they left house, mixed with more people, and realized that some of their ideas about the world were not given any serious thought outside of their specific circle. They had a bit of personal crisis, read up on the subject, talked to outsiders defending a crearionist view, talked to insiders defending a less creationist view. And their acceptance of a non-creationist view goes together with a more general distancing from their upbringing, it's only a small aspect of that process. All of those I know have some mild to severe conflict with their parents about how they raise their own children.

Other people went through a similar process, but continue as formal creationists. Often, they stop talking much about the subject after the 'discussion' phase.


My understanding of their paradigm has little influence on this process. When they discuss such a topic with someone like me, it's because I am an outsider. It's an exploration of the alternative. If they want to talk to someone who understands their paradigm, they talk to a lapsed former creationist, not to me. I can only present a clear and convincing alternative, my expressdd views on creationism don't have much effect either way.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:40 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Or to bring up an analogy I've used in the police thread, it's like criticizing cigarettes for causing cancer, even though they obviously aren't the only thing that causes cancer.
In fact, the majority of smokers do not get cancer, and the majority of cancer is not caused by smoking. And yet, the correlation is absolutely there, because smokers are something like 25 times more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population. In addition, there are explicit causal connections between tobacco use and cancer (in case the 2500% risk increase didn't convince you of a causal relationship).

Analogously, it is certainly true that not all creationists are homophobes and not all homophobes are creationists. It may even be the case that the majority of creationists are not homophobes and the majority of homophobes are not creationists. (Though as mentioned, the extremist, conversion-camp level of homophobia *is* pretty exclusive to creationists.) But that doesn't undo the facts that creationists are more likely to be homophobes than the general population, and that homophobes are more likely to be creationists than the general population, and that there is an explicit causal relationship, in the words of homophobic creationists themselves, between their religious views and their homophobia.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:51 pm UTC

The problem here is how dangerous is being redefined to suit the paradigms of the speakers. YEC's don't murder, maim, abuse their children, or any of the normal things that define any person as dangerous, at least as a general trait. Or if they do it hasn't been supported by any data that says so. They certainly can be bigoted and close minded. And they certainly seek to make their world like they want it to be, which is pretty much what everyone does. I personally think that Republicans pursue aims and goal that have deleterious effects on society, but that makes them disagreeable to me, not dangerous.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Quercus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:56 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:GENERALLY it's QUITE the opposite. you'll rarely find someone more familiar with the bible than an atheist....especially atheists in the US....because we were almost all raised in religious households....MANY in creationist/fundamentalist households, and quite a few in outright cults.

I know you have acknowledged this to an extent, but I do want to say outright that that's very different in some places. Most atheists in the UK (at least the ones I know of) are from either atheist or only very vaguely religious backgrounds. Most are not familiar with more than the broad outlines of the bible, and those that are have read it primarily for historical interest. I think that's similar for lots of Western Europe. It's not really surprising given that about 65% of people in the UK say they don't believe in any God.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:03 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
DSenette wrote:GENERALLY it's QUITE the opposite. you'll rarely find someone more familiar with the bible than an atheist....especially atheists in the US....because we were almost all raised in religious households....MANY in creationist/fundamentalist households, and quite a few in outright cults.

I know you have acknowledged this to an extent, but I do want to say outright that that's very different in some places. Most atheists in the UK (at least the ones I know of) are from either atheist or only very vaguely religious backgrounds. Most are not familiar with more than the broad outlines of the bible, and those that are have read it primarily for historical interest. I think that's similar for lots of Western Europe. It's not really surprising given that about 65% of people in the UK say they don't believe in any God.

yeah, that's why I said in the US....which, is also where MOST of the YECs are too. are there even YECs in the UK? I'd imagine they'd get laughed at pretty hard.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:18 pm UTC

I can't speak for the UK, but flavours of young earth creationism are common in the Netherlands. Typically among old-style calvinist or new-style evangelical Christians, and among Muslims where I am less familiar with the subdominations.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Quercus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:31 pm UTC

I'm not sure about literal young earth creationism*, but I know there are a fair number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK, who are fairly literalist about everything except the young earth bit (including rejecting evolution). I would also be surprised if there wasn't some level of creationist belief among Muslims and Jews.

*Apparently there are a few Christian creationist organisations in the UK, so that indicates at least some level of creationist belief.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Whizbang » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:37 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The problem here is how dangerous is being redefined to suit the paradigms of the speakers. YEC's don't murder, maim, abuse their children, or any of the normal things that define any person as dangerous, at least as a general trait. Or if they do it hasn't been supported by any data that says so. They certainly can be bigoted and close minded. And they certainly seek to make their world like they want it to be, which is pretty much what everyone does. I personally think that Republicans pursue aims and goal that have deleterious effects on society, but that makes them disagreeable to me, not dangerous.


As a group they are dangerous because they seek to overturn this gravy train we are all riding called the Scientific Enlightenment. As individuals they may or may not be dangerous depending on their actions and intentions. Certainly their (fairly common, let's be honest) anti-gay stance is dangerous to gays and gay sympathizers. Certainly there are other behavioral tendencies that can be classified as dangerous (bombing abortion clinics, disowning pregnant teens, etc.). Though as had been said, these behaviors do not apply to all creationists and is not limited to them. (Though I really don't see much of a difference between one religious nutjob and another, the problem remains the same (ie Religion), no matter what they are labeled. Also note that not every religious person is a "nutjob". Religious nutjobs are merely the dangerous byproduct of a religious society.)

My objection to the individual creationist/religious person has more to do with irrational thinking and enabling others to think irrationally. My objection to creationists/religious people as a whole is that their collective irrationality leads to a net increase in danger to society.

Though personally I like to talk in terms of harm rather than danger. Danger does imply, to me at least, an immediacy and intensity that doesn't apply to the more insidious threat creationists present. Harm, on the other hand, can be anything that detracts from the well-being of individuals and society.

So I can very easily say, "It is harmful to teach children, or allow children to be taught, creationism," but I would be much more hesitant to say, "It is dangerous to teach children, or allow children to be taught, creationism." Others may draw distinctions differently, however.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Yep. For the most part that is the educational system we have in place. Particularly the higher educational systems, Universities and Collages.

I ain't talking about schooling communities, even though...that's very much an embattled position, due to the power that the Texas BoE wields over national textbook contents.

Probably the most dangerous thing pound for pound is a fusion weapon, brought to us by the marvels of science. I asked this before, should I treat physicists as dangerous, unthinking fools, for giving all those dangerous people a weapon that can destroy all of us.

How much pounds does blind zealotry to exclusionary religion weigh? Because that's killed a shit-ton more people, and personally, I would give it a weight of zero.

I am disturbed by those who are completely fine with insulting people (presumably) in order to change their beliefs. Lamblasting someone's position works great in a formal debate, but it does jackshit against those that don't subscribe to reason as their primary authority. Lamblasting people who hold a particular belief is not productive in any situation. Anybody who is totally fine with insulting people because of the beliefs they hold is more likely self-righteous than concerned.

As I said before, I was personally deprogrammed from being against gay marriage (thankfully I was never actually against gay people, that I can remember at least) by people telling me "what you're proposing is horrific and here's why".

At least anecdotally, I can confirm that telling someone that their beliefs are dangerous is productive.

To effectively persuade someone, you need to first understand their paradigm, and not just on a superficial sense. This is the irony I am talking about. Creationists understand evolution science at a really superficial level and attack scientists using the strawman. How much do you truly understand the mindset of a fundamental creationist such that you can generalize them as stupid people?

I went through a Creationist phase. I was deprogrammed from it. I understand the mindset, and I know why I believed in Creationism -- because someone argued for it, and I was (at the time) lazy enough to believe their convincing framework rather than check whether the evidence they claimed actually matched reality.

I was pretty fuck-damn stupid at that time.

Is Mathmannix stupid?

In complaining that he rejects the methods (not just results) that science provided, while feeling shortchanged by not being able to call his rejection of the scientific method science? Yeah, that's kinda stupid. He's probably real smart in other topics, but this is an arena in which he's very much being willfully ignorant and anti-intellectual.

Because this thread revolves around criticizing one group for a bad thing that is not exclusive to that group. It's like focusing on the race of a criminal rather than the crime that was committed.

That's a bad analogy and you know it. That's a terrible analogy, because (1) people don't primarily use their race to justify committing crimes, (2) there's no race who commits crime on a nearly uniform basis (as in, there's no race where almost everyone is a criminal), and (3) you don't choose your race and you can't change it.

What it's like is like focusing on, for example, that Democrats are primarily (relatively) liberal as the reason why some Democrat did something liberal. If the issue is, in this case, that someone did something liberal, the fact that they're Democrat is pretty relevant, and thus trying to campaign against people choosing to be Democrat is a worthwhile avenue to explore.

Or, if the issue is that my bank was robbed, the fact that career bank robbers primarily rob banks would be relevant, and trying to discourage citizens from becoming career bank robbers would be a worthwhile avenue to explore.

YEC's don't murder, maim, abuse their children, or any of the normal things that define any person as dangerous, at least as a general trait.

Um...

Yes they fucking do.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby mathmannix » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:43 pm UTC

Whoa, so you're comparing spanking to child abuse? I consider it child abuse to NOT spank your child, presuming the child needs it. I could go on, but that's a different topic, which a mod ended with this...
PAstrychef wrote:ok, this has gone on as long as is useful. We won't change any minds here, and it's starting to get argumentative. Let's give this topic a rest.
Pastrychef.

Anyway, I (a YEC) would never abuse my children, but sometimes they need spanking.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:56 pm UTC

well according to a biblically literal view, you're breaking god's law, because he specifically says that it's only ok to hit your children with sticks, not your hand


besides the fact that many many many children are raised quite well without ever being spanked or corporally disciplined once in their life (hi! how are you....I've never been spanked once in my life and I'm a fairly well adjusted adult that respected his parents through out his entire childhood)....which quite clearly shows that no, children do not need spankings to learn how to behave. spanking may "work" in some cases, but just because a method works doesn't mean it's the best or should be accepted (I.E. tear gas does a hell of a job at dispersing a crowd....but it shouldn't be used in all but the most extreme cases)
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:01 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Stupid/harmful people usually do not choose to be stupid/harmful. In their eyes, they are in the right and in the minority. If your argument consists of saying "your position is stupid and harmful to society", they will simply cast you as a hater and ignore you. The more you "persecute" them, the stronger they hold on to their beliefs. It's like force-feeding a junk food addict vegetables. Sure, some of them will realize vegetables taste great and give up their past diet, but many would grow more resentful, hindering future efforts.


Sure, that happens. But we're not *actually* persecuting them. We simply dislike their actions. If the only thing they see as acceptable is me embracing and spreading their beliefs, well...I'm not obligated to accept their viewpoints. Disagreement is not persecution. Even insult is not persecution.

I am disturbed by those who are completely fine with insulting people (presumably) in order to change their beliefs. Lamblasting someone's position works great in a formal debate, but it does jackshit against those that don't subscribe to reason as their primary authority. Lamblasting people who hold a particular belief is not productive in any situation. Anybody who is totally fine with insulting people because of the beliefs they hold is more likely self-righteous than concerned.


I am indeed arrogant and dismissive of them on occasion. The purpose of insults is not to win them over. It's for emphasis. If I call someone's idea "fucking stupid", I am not doing so because it will make them like me. I'm doing it to emphasize that it's a *really* bad idea.

Bad ideas are not fixed merely by making someone like you. It is necessary for critical thinking, and questioning of previously held beliefs to occur.

And hell, as people mature, they hopefully learn to handle such disagreement without taking it personally. I've probably argued with damned near everyone on these forums. Sometimes, this means criticizing the viewpoints of others. That doesn't make either us bad. It just means sometimes folks disagree, and hopefully tossing around different views was useful.

To effectively persuade someone, you need to first understand their paradigm, and not just on a superficial sense. This is the irony I am talking about. Creationists understand evolution science at a really superficial level and attack scientists using the strawman. How much do you truly understand the mindset of a fundamental creationist such that you can generalize them as stupid people? Is Mathmannix stupid? If I hadn't gone back and read the posts on the other thread, I wouldn't have even known he was a young earth creationist.
If you want to eliminate creationism, you have to do it from within. You have to build your argument on their values instead of your own.


Yeah, I grew up in that paradigm. Pretty sure I understand it. However, I am characterizing creationism as stupid. It really is a stupid idea. This is not the same thing as saying that every Creationist is stupid...smart people have dumb ideas sometimes, and dumb people, smart ones. People are complex. However, the idea itself, and the culture around it, is very unhealthy, and opposed to science and education. It's a pretty blatant form of anti-intellectualism. Saying this about it is not merely done because it is insulting, it is done because it is fact. Yes, the facts of creationism ARE insulting, but that makes them no less factual.

It is utterly wrong to say that you can convince someone only by accepting their values. Sometimes, someone's values are wrong. And values can be constructed such that logical conclusions are impossible. For instance, the valuation of literalism and faith above fact. Once you've stopped valuing fact, you've entered a realm where logic need not apply.

Tyndmyr wrote:A bad thing does not have to be exclusive to one group to be dangerous....why do we keep circling back around to this?

Because this thread revolves around criticizing one group for a bad thing that is not exclusive to that group. It's like focusing on the race of a criminal rather than the crime that was committed.


That's a terrible analogy. That's a non-casual factor, and alternative explanations exist that enjoy excellent support. Literally nobody has proposed evidence for creation being non-causal here. The creationists themselves believe it to be causal. Nobody has proposed an alternative explanation for why this correlation exists.

Please, either provide the barest of evidence, and a potential theory to discuss, or stop treating it as fact.

morriswalters wrote:The problem here is how dangerous is being redefined to suit the paradigms of the speakers. YEC's don't murder, maim, abuse their children, or any of the normal things that define any person as dangerous, at least as a general trait. Or if they do it hasn't been supported by any data that says so. They certainly can be bigoted and close minded. And they certainly seek to make their world like they want it to be, which is pretty much what everyone does. I personally think that Republicans pursue aims and goal that have deleterious effects on society, but that makes them disagreeable to me, not dangerous.


Your use of "general trait" is again, ignoring that a correlation need not be even in the majority to exist. There is also a pretty strong correlation between embracing corporal punishment, including more extreme forms of it, and creationist/fundamentalist social groups. In addition, they have some pretty unhealthy viewpoints towards a number of things. LGBT identities serve as a fairly obvious example of this.

And surely, mental damage is no less real than physical.

And yes, someone who is causing a significant level of danger is dangerous. That's what those words mean.

Zamfir wrote:I can't speak for the UK, but flavours of young earth creationism are common in the Netherlands. Typically among old-style calvinist or new-style evangelical Christians, and among Muslims where I am less familiar with the subdominations.


Creationism does exist among Muslims as well, but I believe socially, it's mostly disconnected from the Christian creationist subculture. However, so far as I'm aware, they share a number of traits. In both, it's actually a fairly recent theological development. This wasn't something that existed 80 years ago. It also seems to correlate with less moderate varieties of the Muslim faith(though it's newer, and less entrenched than the Christian variety, I think). It's not a subculture I'm nearly as familiar with, but the more moderate Muslims I've met seem to take no issue with evolution.

Wiki tells me that ISIS banned the teaching of evolution in schools they took over, but that would be pretty far towards the extreme end of things. I think it might be harder to make a causal argument for creationism with regards to muslim extremism, but the correlation still seems to exist. It's kinda interesting, and I suppose I need to study Islam more to really get a good handle on this.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:14 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I consider it child abuse to NOT spank your child, presuming the child needs it.
Apart from how creepy this sounds, the main problem is when you presume the child needs it. Many would argue the answer is never. If your child is too young to be reasoned with, they won't understand why you're hitting them. If they're old enough to be reasoned with, why aren't you doing that instead of hitting them?

Does questioning the bible require spanking? Does having gay friends or thinking gay marriage is okay warrant corporal punishment?

Obviously most people of any religion don't believe one should always hit their children over every infraction, but people vary widely on where to draw the line, and many fundamentalist religious communities are absolutely rife with child abuse. And yet all of them would say they held exactly the same views you describe.

And this is related to creationism and biblical literalism, because religious abusers almost always cite quotes from their holy book to justify how often they beat their kids, since apparently bronze-age desert nomads knew all that needs to be known about raising children.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby mathmannix » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:28 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If your child is too young to be reasoned with, they won't understand why you're hitting them.

This is why the best (possibly only) time you should spank a child is immediately after what they did wrong. If you build an association of (temporary, non-scarring) pain with doing something that could be otherwise much more scarring (e.g., touching a hot stove or running out into traffic), then it should work on a deep psychological level. Touching stove = pain/bad. And it's much better than just saying, "Oh, let Junior touch the hot stove and get burned, and then he'll learn."
gmalivuk wrote:If they're old enough to be reasoned with, why aren't you doing that instead of hitting them?

Yes, spanking is for children, not teenagers or adults. Teenagers can be reasoned with, and also punished on a more abstract way - punishment like grounding or taking away computer privileges, which may be effective even though not having a direct connection like the "touching stove = pain".
gmalivuk wrote:And this is related to creationism and biblical literalism, because religious abusers almost always cite quotes from their holy book to justify how often they beat their kids, since apparently bronze-age desert nomads knew all that needs to be known about raising children.

Children haven't changed since the bronze age, other than having fancier things nowadays. They still push their boundaries, act stupidly, and disobey their parents. Nothing new under the sun. What worked then will still work now.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby Quercus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:35 pm UTC

To bring science into it, there is very little evidence that corporal punishment of children is effective at anything other than getting short-term compliance, and a hell of a lot of evidence that it may cause long-term harm. e.g. see this article:

Elizabeth Gerschoff wrote:I can just about count on one hand the studies that have found anything positive about physical punishment and hundreds that have been negative.

icanus
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:19 pm UTC
Location: in England now abed

Re: Creationism sub-thread

Postby icanus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:38 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I consider it child abuse to NOT spank your child, presuming the child needs it.

Then this is another area, like evolution, where you choose to ignore the science.

Corporal punishment has consistently been shown not just to be innefective as a method of discipline, but also to lead to increased aggression, depression, anxiety, slower cognitive development, substance abuse, criminality and domestic violence.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests