• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationism: Is it New? Are creationists by default dishonest& ignorant in basic science?

Creationists

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Encountering a new conversation the curiosity of this made me open a new thread to understand further.

Is creationism a brand new movement of some sort that sprung up around 100 years ago? If that is the case how about those who lived prior to that? Are they not creationists?

Creationism by definition is the belief that there was a supernatural intervention of some in the creation of the universe and life itself. I understand that thinking in retrospect various people have proposed varying levels of understanding with some believing Adam was created as a full grown mad directly out of clay and breathed life into while some other's propose that man evolved from apes. But these are both claims of creationists.

The curious case of some proposing that creationism is some "movement" that arose as a defiance to evolution in the last century seems like a subjective matter but not a general matter because creationists by default are everyone who generally believe as said above.

1. Is creationism a brand new concept that came up 100 years ago?
2. Is creationism by default against evolution? If that is the case how about creationists who proposed evolution in history? Are they not considered creationists?
3. Being a creationists, does that mean you are dishonest by default? So all our parents, friends, scientists, laymen, in history who believed in creationists, called themselves creationists, all just dishonest?
4. Are all creationists ignorant in science? To reiterate, that's ignorance in basic science! How about those creationists who were scientists, physicists, biologists, etc? Are they all ignorant in science? If that is the case can an ignorant person in science be called a scientist?

Is this a phenomena of the Michael Shermer writings on "why creationists fear evolution"? Well, one must realise that is not general to all creationists. It's subjective. Don't these general statements border the fallacy of composition? Nevertheless, one must understand that those who are opposed to evolution may have some fear of it in the eyes of the atheist, but would the man proposing evolution still fear evolution simply because he is a "creationist"?

Thinking that creationists by default are ignorant in basic science would have actually followed Newtons laws. Is not that a contradiction?

It sounds like a lot of contradictions but there could be something to these claims obviously addressed in the post. So some enlightenment would be great to discuss.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to be educated, intellectually honest and a creationist
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
firedragon said:
I am asking you for your position. What you just did was a Tu Quoque.
Click to expand...
What specific do you expect me to have? I have no religious belief and no expectations of any being true either - which I have outlined elsewhere.

If one must compare why some tend to believe one particular religious belief over another (or in not having any), and why they have such a belief in the first place, then I think my approach is as valid as any other. I tend to look at all aspects of religious belief (religion as concept and process), not just whether I am able to believe the veracity of any particular religious text, or in any logical proofs for the existence of any God, for example, or in having some overwhelming feeling or instinct towards such. If there were no multitude of religious beliefs then one might not need to look at them as similar processes but unfortunately there are, and often being contradictory, such that one has to take this into account - given that it is not reasonable just to choose one that appeals to oneself or just accept them all, being as true as each other. And I suspect this approach is a lot better but less common than what most individuals do in practice. Most (in terms of numbers) will undoubtedly get their religious beliefs handed down to them, with little questioning of such. And I also don't believe that studying any particular religious text will necessarily produce a better answer than not doing so, given the likelihood of being less critical rather than being more so.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Mock Turtle said:
What specific do you expect me to have? I have no religious belief and no expectations of any being true either - which I have outlined elsewhere.

If one must compare why some tend to believe one particular religious belief over another (or in not having any), and why they have such a belief in the first place, then I think my approach is as valid as any other. I tend to look at all aspects of religious belief (religion as concept and process), not just whether I am able to believe the veracity of any particular religious text, or in any logical proofs for the existence of any God, for example, or in having some overwhelming feeling or instinct towards such. If there were no multitude of religious beliefs then one might not need to look at them as similar processes but unfortunately there are, and often being contradictory, such that one has to take this into account - given that it is not reasonable just to choose one that appeals to oneself or just accept them all, being as true as each other. And I suspect this approach is a lot better but less common than what most individuals do in practice. Most (in terms of numbers) will undoubtedly get their religious beliefs handed down to them, with little questioning of such. And I also don't believe that studying any particular religious text will necessarily produce a better answer than not doing so, given the likelihood of being less critical rather than being more so.
Click to expand...

Too vague and abstract and way too generalised to engage with objectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top