Content anticreationist

[Bea Ond]

This is my first non-introductory post on this board. :woohoo:

Hi Victor.

First let me speak for myself. I do not believe in “creationism” but I don’t think of myself as an “anticreationist”. I am content to allow anyone to believe whatever they wish, as long as they do not attempt to impose those beliefs on others. That’s fair isn’t it? I won’t impose mine and they shouldn’t impose theirs.

However I love to discuss these kinds of topics. I believe that I am capable of talking about things like this in a reasonable respectful way. And I find it can be very enlightening in many different ways

The question however was whether I think most people are willing to let creationists be. And I don’t know what most people do.

But if someone does try to impose his or her beliefs, I am ready to fight the good fight. Knockout I have been known to defend freedom of speech for many positions that I do not agree with.

 

[michel]

I'd be interested in hearing who thinks the following statement is true:

Most anticreationists would be content to let creationists believe as they wish and not make an issue of it.

~Victor

I voted 'yes' (mainly because I had forgotten to factor in the extroardinary 'religion being forced into politics and society' element in the States.

I would have though , other than for that reason quoted above, anticreationists couldn't really care what Creationists think - well, come to think of it, I am an anticreationist, and, as far as I am concerned, anyone can believe anything they like - as long as it doesn't impinge on my life (which I suppose is the reason you guys have voted 'no').

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I had no idea that evolution was a religion...

It's not that I'm aware of, but when Deut said he would be willing to let people believe as they wished - with certain exclusions - you asked if that included his 'sport'. The sport as referenced takes place in an open forum on the internet, therefore anyone who posts is fair game for rebuttal. In Deut's case it's often a rather scathing rebuttal, purely because the man as a general rule is operating from a position of knowledge and combines that with the ability to make you feel about 3 inches tall with the brain of an IQ challenged gnat.
As he is not intruding into the homes of creationists and trying to influence their beliefs, then of course his standpoint on this topic doesn't include his 'sport'.

I'll take that as a joke...

Take it as you will. Of course what goes on here is largely sport for many people. It's a big morass of argument that keeps the wheels of your brain clicking over. You'll find there are plenty of people here because they enjoy a well constructed argument and they can't get anywhere else the quality of argument on the topics they get here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll take an opposing position in an argument on a topic I have no reeal opinion on, just because it needs to be done. Sometimes there'll be a person who has annoyed me with their overwhelming stupidity in the past and regardless I've gotta take an opposing position just because they're the person I'm rebutting. Thankfully those people very rarely post anything I don't disagree with as a matter of course.
This is an internet forum...it's not the world political arena. Whether 25% of the people here think George W should be impeached or 5% support the right to arm bears isn't of monumental importance. If you're here for something other than 'sport' and a decent argument, you may be taking the whole thing too seriously.

What is even funnier is that it came from a talkorigins.com.

Shame on you for attaching it to Christians...:tsk:

Yes, shame on me. I'll just pop on my hair shirt and go flagellate myself.
Is talkorigins.com the actual origin of the word, or is that just where you happened to get the quote from? Because there are references to the 'anticreationists' at AIG, Trueorigins and ICR,just to name the first three sites that popped up after Talkorigins.

 

[painted wolf]

it is true however that my religions creation stories never get a word in edgewise. Knockout

I have no problem with people beliving in Genisis but for them to insert into science curriculum they have to prove that it is science... something they can not or will not do.

as for the term "anticreationists" it is primarily a creationist "buzz" term... it is far more useful to the cause to call someone anti-whatever than to say 'evolutionist'. Anti brings up all kinds of subconscious hostility... anti-american for example.

wa:do

 

[ChrisP]

it is true however that my religions creation stories never get a word in edgewise. Knockout

I have no problem with people beliving in Genisis but for them to insert into science curriculum they have to prove that it is science... something they can not or will not do.

wa:do

Good point Painted Wolfeh. If you wished Creationism to be taught in schools, it would have to be very general, as there are many different kinds of Creation, with many different legends.

 

[michel]

Good point Painted Wolfeh. If you wished Creationism to be taught in schools, it would have to be very general, as there are many different kinds of Creation, with many different legends.

I think the whole point is that creationism ought not to be taught in school......

 

[ChrisP]

I think the whole point is that creationism ought not to be taught in school......

Mmmmnnn and that is the plan I would advocate, however......

People who advocate this usually advocate the study of Evolution, and I wouldn't be happy with that either. Teach what we know, not what we guess at.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Teach what we know, not what we guess at.

Visit your local natural history museum. Evolution is not a "guess".

The real question is, would creationists be content to stay away from natural history museums, even if they were free and open to the public? The answer appears to be a resounding yes.

 

[ChrisP]

Visit your local natural history museum. Evolution is not a "guess".

The real question is, would creationists be content to stay away from natural history museums, even if they were free and open to the public? The answer appears to be a resounding yes.

LOL, it's as much a guess as any religion, different people just choose to believe different statistics/facts (what is a fact anyway? )

When it comes to a universal educational curriculum we must be consistent, to ensure consistency in what people are taught about our world. It is easy to teach sciences without teaching either an Atheist or Theist belief structure as they are physical. Show the students how things physically react, and then leave it up to their judgement to decide why. Nothing need be omitted.

 

[painted wolf]

actually the evidence for mutations, adaptation, genetic similarities ammong all life, the fossil record... and so on and so forth, are all solid. They can all be seen and tested.

Facts are not something guessed at, they are solid. Faith is the hope for things for which there isn't any solid repeatable evidence. There isn't any 'faith' involved in Evolution.

wa:do

 

[michel]

actually the evidence for mutations, adaptation, genetic similarities ammong all life, the fossil record... and so on and so forth, are all solid. They can all be seen and tested.

Facts are not something guessed at, they are solid. Faith is the hope for things for which there isn't any solid repeatable evidence. There isn't any 'faith' involved in Evolution.

wa:do

Good post painted wolf.

 

[ChrisP]

actually the evidence for mutations, adaptation, genetic similarities ammong all life, the fossil record... and so on and so forth, are all solid. They can all be seen and tested.

Facts are not something guessed at, they are solid. Faith is the hope for things for which there isn't any solid repeatable evidence. There isn't any 'faith' involved in Evolution.

wa:do

I disagree, there is a lot of margin for error in some of the dating testing, and many reconstructions of fossil's are created out of fragments of bone.This to me is guessing, Examples that have been proven to be fallacies are: The Brontosaurus, various forms of what we once thought were early man such as Leaky's african man, Peking man etc. What we think we know now is probably just going to be disproven in 100 years.

For me what we know is what we can actually observe happening (real-time) in front of us. Chemical reactions, interactions between species, anatomical makeups. Things from the past where reconstruction and testing is involved become very subjective, as the desire of the tester to prove his/her hypothesis.

Nature has no such desire and is the only true objective point of reference, as animals and plants are incapable of taking a point of view. Once human interpretation of the facts presented become involved, true objectivity is impossible as all is seen through the lense of the person observing.

Anyway, I'm not very trusting, especially of people out to prove they're right.

 

[niceguy]

I'd be interested in hearing who thinks the following statement is true:

Most anticreationists would be content to let creationists believe as they wish and not make an issue of it.

~Victor

In my opinion "False", of the simple reason that you are asking about "anticreationists", anticreationists are per definition against creationism. Thus, in my opinion, "anticreationists" are those that make a point of them challange the creationits and do whatever they can to defeat them. Knockout

Scientits on the other hand doesn't bevelive in the creationits claims but most of them are perfectly willing to ignore them. Any scientist worth his salt will do what they can to defend aginst creationist attacking them but only some of them are interested in launching a crusade against them.

 

[Bennettresearch]

actually the evidence for mutations, adaptation, genetic similarities ammong all life, the fossil record... and so on and so forth, are all solid. They can all be seen and tested.

Facts are not something guessed at, they are solid. Faith is the hope for things for which there isn't any solid repeatable evidence. There isn't any 'faith' involved in Evolution.

wa:do

Hey PW, gotta disagree. Faith is a rather ubiquitous term that is not only applied in religious terms. Leaky had faith that he would discover an intermediate hominid fossil with a larger brain, his son did finally discover one. That was faith.

I think Scott should have qualified this question. I voted yes but I wasn't considering the push by the creationists to put this into the school carriculum. If this weren't the case I doubt whether anticreationists would give it any thought at all. I certainly don't.


Craig

 

[michel]

I'd be interested in hearing who thinks the following statement is true:

Most anticreationists would be content to let creationists believe as they wish and not make an issue of it.

~Victor

I guess that might be true, but with certain caveats.

Those being :-
a) that Creationists do not attempt to 'convert' anticreationists
b) that creationist have no expectations of having their beliefs publicised, or taught in schools.

I would imagine (without knowing better) that the anti creationist would view the creationist with a mix of humour and pity.