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: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.Tyndmyr wrote:You have ridiculously strong links between the three elements of fundamentalist christianity, creationism, and anti-LGBT issues.
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....