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

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Lies are lies whoever says it, and its fine to call it as such. But generalising it to almost half of humanity is "bigotry". Dont do that please.

Its not half for me, I consider most humans to be lying scum. I'm a misanthrope, and that is being honest (about myself).

The Muslims are liars, the Christians are liars, the Jews are liars, the Buddhists are liars, the Hindus are liars, all of them are big liars telling lies day in and day out, they lie to themselves, they lie about God, they lie about their day, they tell lies constantly, and for every lie they tell, they and I will be called to account for it if there is to be justice, and then God is supposed to inform each of us of the truth and the lies.

The Muslims are huge liars though, along with the Christians they love to imitate. Some Muslims follow the YEC right into the Twilight Zone, they are all trash in my view. Yeah, I'm a bigot, what can I do though? Love these freaks? It seems too difficult and too dishonest to myself to love people who I think are destroying the Earth, destroying their families, destroying the minds of the young. I am much more comfortable wishing death upon them all and cheering when their entire brood is killed off by COVID-19 because they don't believe it exists and breath in each others mouths as they tell each other lies about Jesus and Muhammed and Buddha.

 

[firedragon]

Its not half for me, I consider most humans to be lying scum. I'm a misanthrope, and that is being honest (about myself).

The Muslims are liars, the Christians are liars, the Jews are liars, the Buddhists are liars, the Hindus are liars, all of them are big liars telling lies day in and day out, they lie to themselves, they lie about God, they lie about their day, they tell lies constantly, and for every lie they tell, they and I will be called to account for it if there is to be justice, and then God is supposed to inform each of us of the truth and the lies.

The Muslims are huge liars though, along with the Christians they love to imitate. Some Muslims follow the YEC right into the Twilight Zone, they are all trash in my view. Yeah, I'm a bigot, what can I do though? Love these freaks? It seems too difficult and too dishonest to myself to love people who I think are destroying the Earth, destroying their families, destroying the minds of the young. I am much more comfortable wishing death upon them all and cheering when their entire brood is killed off by COVID-19 because they don't believe it exists and breath in each others mouths as they tell each other lies about Jesus and Muhammed and Buddha.

).

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

But brother you are discussing the theology of Christians and trying to debate the veracity of Christs divinity. Its a whole other topic. Is that so difficult to understand?

I'm trying to relate it to these YEC people though, they are Christians, even on the wiki page it said something about their beliefs in Christ and the Devil and all that, it is because of their beliefs in all this, in the Bible in particular, that they insist upon denying science and being set apart from people who admit to the apparent reality of things, it seems very much connected to me and "one thing", that when people say "Creationist" they are generally meaning these YEC types who insist upon many different things that most others would consider falsehoods, lies, untruths, making them an inherently dishonest people from the start, a bunch of liars.

People are probably ignoring everything I'm writing anyway though, so it barely matters probably. I can make another topic that is focused on the word "dishonest" though and then separate it out from the Creationist stuff. I'd probably do it differently though, and make it about "don't you actually think a person who doesn't believe what you believe is a fool?" or something, but I don't know how interested I am in that, since I think I already know that people do indeed think so, since logically they would adopt whatever they think they can which is truest and best, and so must think anyone who doesn't follow what is truest and best is a fool, as well as a person living lies, but don't say it to their faces because they don't want to get slapped.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are contending that Ibne Khaldun was not a creationist even though he was called a creationist by everyone who ever wrote about him. His book defines him to be a creationist.

So its just that you are not aware of it.

Really? Books written in English call him a creationist. Are you sure about that?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

).

So the dangerous lie told by Buddhists is that "if you do these things, you will get to Nirvana/Nibanna or otherwise you will get another chance or round if you fail, through reincarnation"

That is a grave danger if it isn't true. Yeah, its a different topic, but I wanted to clarify why I included them and why I'm calling all these people liars.

Buddhists are not typically Creationists though I think, many of them seem to insist that there was no real Creator God, or if there was, this was not the Highest sort of Being, and they have hostility towards Prajapati (see, I tried to tie it in with the subject of "Creationism").

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Really? Books written in English call him a creationist. Are you sure about that?

They probably say that He Believed in a God who Creates and is Creator (like practically everyone else on Earth).

 

[firedragon]

Really? Books written in English call him a creationist. Are you sure about that?

Who spoke of books written in English? Is not that a strawman argument?

Please read the OP and be relevant. It does not mention anything about "books written in English".

 

[Subduction Zone]

firedragon seems to be using the word to be inclusive of anyone at all who believes God created anything at all in any manner at all, that God is creator, and that thus makes out to be practically any and all theist of any sort for the most part a Creationist by such a broad and inclusive definition, I'm a creationist too then.

The people that most seem to be thinking of and referring to are the modern Fundamentalist Literalist Christian Creationists who are going under names like "YEC - Young Earth Creationists" and fought that court case and stuff.

Correct, and I have tried to explain to him why that is incorrect. I gave him links on the origin of the term. He ignores those and goes with an overly literal definition of "creationist". I have asked him more than once if English is his first language. He refuses to answer. That implies that it is not. People that were not raised speaking a language often make the error of mistranslating terms by being to literalistic in their definition. Creationism is an English term that describes people whose beliefs arose due to their opposition to the science that tells us that Genesis is mythical. It is not applicable to all theists since it was Christian theists that first debunked Genesis by demonstrating that Noah's Flood never happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who spoke of books written in English? Is not that a strawman argument?

Please read the OP and be relevant. It does not mention anything about "books written in English".

No, it is not. We are communicating in English. Certain terms to not translate if one is overly literal as you are. That is why your error is an Equivocation Fallacy.

Once again, you misunderstand the term "creationist". It does not apply to all that believe in a God. In the western world "Creationism" arose due to an opposition of the science that refuted Genesis. It was a term used by those that believed the Genesis myths. The earliest users of the term were the ones that set its meaning. I am sure that there are some idioms that you are used to that do not translate into English literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism by definition is the belief that there was a supernatural intervention of some in the creation of the universe and life itself.

This definition in the OP is incorrect. It is overly literal. If anything that makes your entire argument a strawman. This is why the history of the term is important. You could have added a qualifier, for example "For this thread Creationism by definition . . ." but you did not. A person does not get to redefine the terminology used by others.

 

[firedragon]

I gave him links on the origin of the term.

The origin of the term in history is in the arabic language, its al Huluku.

Lol. Now this probably is the reason you were trying to insult me saying I dont know English. Just because someone quotes another language you assume he is ignorant in English.

You are unaware of this. Just be a little humble and learn something.

No, it is not. We are communicating in English.

Yeah. Just because we are communicating in English does not mean we can only refer to English websites. So that's why you tried to insult people by saying they dont know English just because they quote books not in English and quote people who were not English.

Thats your bubble. Not everyone else's. If this is your limitation, there's nothing much to say about such.

Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

This definition in the OP is incorrect.

Whats not within your grasp is not incorrect, its just not within.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The origin of the term in history is in the arabic language, its al Huluku.

Lol. Now this probably is the reason you were trying to insult me saying I dont know English. Just because someone quotes another language you assume he is ignorant in English.

You are unaware of this. Just be a little humble and learn something.


Yeah. Just because we are communicating in English does not mean we can only refer to English websites. So that's why you tried to insult people by saying they dont know English just because they quote books not in English and quote people who were not English.

Thats your bubble. Not everyone else's. If this is your limitation, there's nothing much to say about such.

Have a great day.

No. It is not. Arabic is another language. Now you may have a similar term but it is not the origin of "creationism". And I am not trying to insult you. You keep making a gross error and I have merely pointed it out to you and tried to politely correct you. I have not called you names as you have tried to do so with me.

As to communicating when we are communicating in English we must use English definitions, not Arabic transliteralizations. One can be very incorrect by doing so. Seriously are there not any idioms in Arabic. When we say "It is raining cats and dogs outside" that does not mean that cats and dogs are falling from the clouds. In the same sense a "creationist" is not everyone that believes in a creator.

 

[firedragon]

No. It is not. Arabic is another language. Now you may have a similar term but it is not the origin of "creationism".

It is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whats not within your grasp is not incorrect, its just not within.

Trust me you are incorrect in your usage of the term and you have confirmed that by trying to say that its origin is Arabic. Once again it was a group of people that resisted the evidence that Genesis is a myth that came up with that term for their beliefs. Being overly literal in translating a language will often lead to errors in usage. You should know this. As a whole you have excellent English, but have a hang up with certain terminology.

 

[firedragon]

Trust me you are incorrect in your usage of the term and you have confirmed that by trying to say that its origin is Arabic. Once again it was a group of people that resisted the evidence that Genesis is a myth that came up with that term for their beliefs. Being overly literal in translating a language will often lead to errors in usage. You should know this. As a whole you have excellent English, but have a hang up with certain terminology.

Nope. Not.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Another group comes to my mind for comparison, which I brought up briefly earlier:
There are a type of people who are often "Creationists" not dissimilar to the YEC, but more extreme, who call themselves "Flat-Earthers" and the reason they insist upon the Earth being flat despite all evidence to the contrary which they stubbornly deny is a grand conspiracy, is that they say "The Bible says the Earth is flat" and that is why they believe it. This is why the Bible is not irrelevant to this, and people taking it very literally, because in both cases, the YEC, and the Flat-Earthers, many of them insist upon what they believe only because the Bible says so in their opinion and their stubborn way of interpreting things literally, and that they can not budge from this position because that would mean to them that the Bible has lied to them or said something inaccurate, which would make their whole world fall to pieces, and then they can't even trust in Jesus either.

The Flat-Earth looneys even made their way to the Muslims on Free-Minds (where I was kicked, obviously, lol, because of my harsh views most likely), and they were spreading their destructive views and anti-science conspiracy theories as Muslims among Muslims. They are corruptors and destroyers.

All this stems from over-literal interpretations of some verses of books, and especially from the Christians of some sorts insisting upon the Bible being taken entirely literally, and so if the literal interpretation is not true, then the Bible is not true, and if anything contradicts it also while it is true, then whatever seems to contradict it is not true.

To suggest (if anyone is suggesting) that the Bible and Christianity and Christian Literalism has nothing at all to do with the way the word Creationism is used today, or with the origins and influences upon the YEC and Flat-Earthers, is really to ignore the actual problem here.

A broadening of who is included in the term Creationist, doesn't help solve anything really, its more like saying "Hey look, Buddhists use Swastikas too", and it doesn't seem to work, because Creationism is mainly associated as a term and brings to the minds of many people, a Toxic bunch of Literalist Fundamentalists who are opposed to Scientific Consensus, and to varying degrees, this extends to Medical Science, All Sciences, and even their belief in Scientific Conspiracies.

They are dangerous imbeciles, just like a Missile might have a smile drawn on it and "the best of intentions" they are more dangerous than people give them credit for, and their views somehow convince many people, who then go further and further into error, paranoia, conspiracy, and LIES about the apparent reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is.

Nope:


History of creationism - Wikipedia

"Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true . . ."
It is a good read. Again you are attempting to be overly literalistic in your definition. The reason that we have different terms for "creationist" and "theist" is because not all believers in God deny evolution. Watering down a term by making it too broad makes the term useless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another group comes to my mind for comparison, which I brought up briefly earlier:
There are a type of people who are often "Creationists" not dissimilar to the YEC, but more extreme, who call themselves "Flat-Earthers" and the reason they insist upon the Earth being flat despite all evidence to the contrary which they stubbornly deny is a grand conspiracy, is that they say "The Bible says the Earth is flat" and that is why they believe it. This is why the Bible is not irrelevant to this, and people taking it very literally, because in both cases, the YEC, and the Flat-Earthers, many of them insist upon what they believe only because the Bible says so in their opinion and their stubborn way of interpreting things literally, and that they can not budge from this position because that would mean to them that the Bible has lied to them or said something inaccurate, which would make their whole world fall to pieces, and then they can't even trust in Jesus either.

The Flat-Earth looneys even made their way to the Muslims on Free-Minds (where I was kicked, obviously, lol, because of my harsh views most likely), and they were spreading their destructive views and anti-science conspiracy theories as Muslims among Muslims. They are corruptors and destroyers.

All this stems from over-literal interpretations of some verses of books, and especially from the Christians of some sorts insisting upon the Bible being taken entirely literally, and so if the literal interpretation is not true, then the Bible is not true, and if anything contradicts it also while it is true, then whatever seems to contradict it is not true.

To suggest (if anyone is suggesting) that the Bible and Christianity and Christian Literalism has nothing at all to do with the way the word Creationism is used today, or with the origins and influences upon the YEC and Flat-Earthers, is really to ignore the actual problem here.

A broadening of who is included in the term Creationist, doesn't help solve anything really, its more like saying "Hey look, Buddhists use Swastikas too", and it doesn't seem to work, because Creationism is mainly associated as a term and brings to the minds of many people, a Toxic bunch of Literalist Fundamentalists who are opposed to Scientific Consensus, and to varying degrees, this extends to Medical Science, All Sciences, and even their belief in Scientific Conspiracies.

They are dangerous imbeciles, just like a Missile might have a smile drawn on it and "the best of intentions" they are more dangerous than people give them credit for, and their views somehow convince many people, who then go further and further into error, paranoia, conspiracy, and LIES about the apparent reality.

The only difference between OEC's, YEC's, and Flerfers is there degree of denial of reality.

 

[thomas t]

The danger is if you'll be thrown in hell or punished for saying that Jesus is God or Jesus is the Son of God or Jesus is your savior who will save you from God's Judgment or the false things spoken or believed such as "Jesus is God, God born through Mary" etc etc.

I believe that people are not thrown into hell for declaring their beliefs.
Eternal punishment for stating an opinion - this is not what I believe.
I stay with my opinion: there is nothing spiritually dangerous about being a Christian.