I think he is talking about some quote where you seemed to say some book written about Ibne Khaldun calls him a "creationist" (which he was, if creationist is meant to mean someone who believes in a Creator God who Creates, which is not what people are always meaning or thinking of exclusively when they use the term Creationist, but are thinking of YEC types in particular who took on the name heavily and refer to themselves as "Creationists" sometimes).
-
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?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
I think he is talking about some quote where you seemed to say some book written about Ibne Khaldun calls him a "creationist" (which he was, if creationist is meant to mean someone who believes in a Creator God who Creates, which is not what people are always meaning or thinking of exclusively when they use the term Creationist, but are thinking of YEC types in particular who took on the name heavily and refer to themselves as "Creationists" sometimes).
Yep, and boy is it frustrating talking to Flat-Earthers, omg. You can travel the freaking world in a boat, in a plane, in a circle and reach back where you started, its very simple, but they can't let go of their idiotic beliefs and falsehood, and are huge liars/lie-spreaders. They somehow manage to actually convince all sorts of rebellious oafs who just use this as a way to say No to "the man!".
"The unpardonable/unforgivable sin or “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22–30 and Matthew 12:22–32. Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter” (Mark 3:28), but then He gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (verse 29)."
Grave Danger.
Hebrews 10:25-
25Let us not neglect meeting together, as some have made a habit, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching. 26 If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries
"
Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Source: 8 Bible verses about Unforgivable Sin"
Numbers 15:30
But the person who sins defiantly, whether a native or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD. That person shall be cut off from his people.
1 Samuel 2:25
If a man sins against another man, God can intercede for him, but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to their father, since the LORD intended to put them to death.
Matthew 12:31-32
“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Mark 3:28-29
“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—
Luke 12:10
Verse Concepts
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.
Source: 8 Bible verses about Unforgivable Sin
firedragon
Veteran Member
You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use where some creationists in the 20th century, especially after the 60s who made up a whole new wave of campaigning against evolution because of a circular Van Der kamp sent on the geo centric theory to some number of Christian Institutions and many others followed suit. Its a silly theory even according to much older observable evidence but this triggered another wave of these so called new creationist movements that was waving their red flag against evolution and even simple things like Heliocentrism. But this is a new phenomena and this where you are getting this idea of creationism being anti evolutionary, and that God created every single thing, one at a time, at different intervals in time, and that the earth is half a millennium old.
This is not the creationism of other worlds. This is an American phenomena. America is not the whole world. So come out of your bubble and understand the rest of the world and its history.
In the 17th century James Ussher wrote on creationism and he wrote in English. Not arabic or Swahili. And it was not written as a campaign against evolution where as you have this perception that "creationism arose as a campaign against evolution". Thats the wrong perception. In the United States during Darwins emergence very few people were conceptualising evolution though Darwins own grand father was an evolutionary biologist of his own rite. So during that time everyone took up evolution in the U.S, but that does not mean evolution as a science did not exist elsewhere. It existed for a millennium which most of these people who speak of a new creationism never knew. Their whole world and the whole universe is the United States and its history. Thats it. Its too shallow and too narrow. You should come out of it. Also with so many people writing in English before Darwin on creationism at different levels prove that even your theory that "the English term creationism was invented as a response to evolution" is absolutely false.
What actually took place was that in the United States after Darwin, creationism almost vanished but did not die completely. But that defeat was unbearable for dogmatic Christian movements throughout and the revival of the creationist movement came up with new arguments against Heliocentrism and evolution, so you think that "this is it. This is creationism".
No way. Thats too shallow and is good for TV education.
It was in the late 1900's when the evolution debate became a public affair that Christians got their shock of a lifetime in the U.S. So all kinds of people started writing books against evolution. They were well funded as well. This, is not the definition of creationism. That is your anecdotal view of it.
Creationism is a general term, with some people like these new earth propagators and the geo centric theory proponents along with the atheists who refute them adopting varying definitions to suit their needs and paths. That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.
Peace.
I guess when people say "Creationists", one should ask "do you mean people like the YEC types, or do you mean like the majority of all human beings through all history who believed in any sort of Creator God or Creation Acts by a God or Power?", then they will start levitating and can start doing a little dance.
I don't understand what this thread was about exactly, was it about people using this term Creationist both to refer to some specific narrow idea and theology like YEC and more broadly to encompass nearly all human thinking from around the world?
Most human beings and human cultures believed in creation, that God or Gods created things, and whatever was in Nature was likely brought about by this God or that God or this event related to a God or that event related to a God, that was just what everyone thought, that is what we still think. Most people are not YEC types and don't call themselves "Creationists" because they don't associate themselves with the YEC types, even though most people on the Earth today still believe in Creation and that things were Created one way or another.
Creationism, if meant to mean "Believing that things were Created" or even more broadly "Thinking the word Creation is appropriate to use still", is still the majority belief among humans, their consensus. Likewise, most human beings do not reject medicine, medical science, science, sciences, scientific consensus. A lot more people may now raise their eyebrows regarding "evolution" by not understanding the concept to well, but they are still not the majority, as the majority still recognizes and trusts the scientists and scientific community and scientific consensus. If the nutjobs are allowed to become more dominant, this will be bad for all human beings, and they need to be opposed vehemently, and their garbage ideas repeatedly trashed so that they are crushed out of existence ideally, only to re-emerge yet again with some new ugly face spouting dumb and twisted ideas to defend some specific verse taken in the worst ways possible to mismatch it with reality (as if they are just very bored).
Ibne Khaldun was hopefully nothing like them, or else he would have been a belligerent fool insisting upon falsehood without reason except "this book I like says so and I think it means this only and that it can only be this way".
I don't understand what this thread was about exactly, was it about people using this term Creationist both to refer to some specific narrow idea and theology like YEC and more broadly to encompass nearly all human thinking from around the world?
Most human beings and human cultures believed in creation, that God or Gods created things, and whatever was in Nature was likely brought about by this God or that God or this event related to a God or that event related to a God, that was just what everyone thought, that is what we still think. Most people are not YEC types and don't call themselves "Creationists" because they don't associate themselves with the YEC types, even though most people on the Earth today still believe in Creation and that things were Created one way or another.
Creationism, if meant to mean "Believing that things were Created" or even more broadly "Thinking the word Creation is appropriate to use still", is still the majority belief among humans, their consensus. Likewise, most human beings do not reject medicine, medical science, science, sciences, scientific consensus. A lot more people may now raise their eyebrows regarding "evolution" by not understanding the concept to well, but they are still not the majority, as the majority still recognizes and trusts the scientists and scientific community and scientific consensus. If the nutjobs are allowed to become more dominant, this will be bad for all human beings, and they need to be opposed vehemently, and their garbage ideas repeatedly trashed so that they are crushed out of existence ideally, only to re-emerge yet again with some new ugly face spouting dumb and twisted ideas to defend some specific verse taken in the worst ways possible to mismatch it with reality (as if they are just very bored).
Ibne Khaldun was hopefully nothing like them, or else he would have been a belligerent fool insisting upon falsehood without reason except "this book I like says so and I think it means this only and that it can only be this way".
@firedragon please allow answering the following (mostly) off topic remarks since they are getting personal against Christians, as I see it.
Christian Creationists don't have anything in common with flat-earthers, as you suggest. The latter argue against observable facts.
Note that the unforgivable sin does not mean you will roast in hell forever. This is at least my interpretation.
Maybe you lose a priviledge in heaven for not having been forgiven that sin, that's all. I'm not saying this is how it is... but I do say you can't rule it out.
So: noone roasts in hell for stating an opinion, I think again.
no. Even if you say that Muslims you think lie the same.
Christians are not sincerely stupid, nor are they dimwit.
This sounds like you are in favor of persecuting Christians, I'm afraid. Christians shouldn't be dicriminated against. No Bible verse gives humans the right to persecute others.
they should.
Christian Creationists don't have anything in common with flat-earthers, as you suggest. The latter argue against observable facts.
there is a difference between slander talk against the Holy Spirit and stating a religious belief. Not every religious belief is slander. Even if a religious belief may be wrong... it does not qualify as slander talk against the Holy Spirit by default.
Note that the unforgivable sin does not mean you will roast in hell forever. This is at least my interpretation.
Maybe you lose a priviledge in heaven for not having been forgiven that sin, that's all. I'm not saying this is how it is... but I do say you can't rule it out.
So: noone roasts in hell for stating an opinion, I think again.
Yet, when a person knows well what a person means, should we bother them about it so much "nooo, nooo that word is also a million other things", that isn't what they are using the word for mostly, they don't think of those million other things. They are saying "the red thing" and you see the red thing right there, and they are pointing at it and describing it, and you go "nooo, what red thing? there are a million red things, billion even, or far more! Alas, what red thing do you mean? You must be meaning all these other ones" and they are like "I mean the red thing there, the one with the handles, the one with the top, right in front of you, a little to the left, there are no other red things around it", "but a few centuries ago, a red thing existed which didn't have those features, why aren't you referring to that?". Even though I'm clearly a bit of an ***, I do try to take it easy on people by accepting what I think they are trying to point to or refer to or mean, and so when they say "Creationists", I don't take it as them meaning me or referring to my Creationist Beliefs, unless they specify "Anyone who believes in God as Creator" but generally, "Theist" covers that, and "Creationist" is used these days in the narrower way most of the time I think. Its likely to change though, to include all of us now, thanks. Jumbling us in with totally obnoxious jackasses.
Christians were just one of many types of people being referred to, I am not in favor of persecuting just any Christians, I am in favor of persecuting people like those mentioned in some of my examples, like people who try to spread doubts about taking medicines (they can come from any group or identify as anything).
I'm in favor of fighting against (with words mainly, unless things get more serious), any group that spreads lies of any sort at all which can be damaging one way or another. A good Christian will have to turn the other cheek (but even as Christians, they are most likely weak, hypocrites, and unable to follow the New Testament commands or suggestions).
In other words, you can't just sit by and let someone just say "no no, go ahead if you have HIV and have sex with as many people as possible, it will do no harm" for example, that is a dangerous liar, a major threat. Christians are mostly harmless and decent, friendly people, just like most Muslims are, and every other religious and non-religious person, but there are very devilish miscreants in all these factions who do harm either immediately or ultimately, and they need to be shouted down, broadcasted as despicable devils that they are, their views put to shame and destroyed, and yes, fully persecute, prosecute, and ridicule them out of existence. This is not about just ordinary friendly Christians, its about allowing people to spread dangerous lies that can harm human beings and reverse progress towards increased harm overall, those types of people are dangerous, they need to be fought, they are basically "thought terrorists", vandals, who set people back and create major problems.
What they seem to have in common is that both Christian Creationists and Christian Flat-Earthers insist that they believe whatever they do because the Bible told them so, that is why the Flat Earthers say the Earth is Flat, they use scripture to justify this idea, based on being literalists too.
The Catholic Church did seem to think that people can roast in hell for their beliefs, statements, and ultimately their opinions. The Catholic Church and similar believers dominated Christian history with their ideas. Muslims also believe (even though you'll meet the nicey nicey chicken ones a lot), that God throws people in hell for their statements, practices, ideas, beliefs, namely "shirk" which means "sharing", and seems to be the idea, the mere opinion, that "God is not One but has Partners and there are Other Gods". The Jews and Christians throughout history seemed to share the idea regularly that people would be punished or suffer or face consequences for being idolaters, for believing in other Gods, for saying there are other God, for their opinions. The Jewish law asks that a father smash their own childs face in with a rock if he even suggests "lets check out these other Gods, maybe we could worship something else". It was all taken very seriously Mr. Ross.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Repeating an error does not make it correct. I have supported my claims in this matter. You are merely making the error of being overly literal in your interpretation. Languages do not work that way.
Doesn't sound productive to have the words "liar" & "dishonest"
apply to nearly every human (since we all have some bonkers
beliefs or values). Moreover, civility takes a beating when we
call each other "Liar!", rather than addressing issues.
It's been a huge problem on RF, but fortunately one that's been
quelled recently.
True, I think since I apply "Liar" almost universally to practically everyone, it becomes almost as irrelevant as "Breather" or "Living Human". "Hey, did you see all those liars walk into that store earlier?" "Yeah, what was dishonest about them though?" "Well, they were human, so I assumed they suck" "You don't know for certain that they sucked though, do you?" "I guess not, but I'm pretty sure they probably did" "but you're saying something which you don't know for certain, doesn't that make you a person spreading lies as you say?" "Ah, you're just like the rest of us" "A liar?" "A sucker" *kisses mirror*
The term "Creationist" also becomes almost entirely useless if made to mean "most people that have ever existed" because then who can we hate specifically? We would be stuck hating more universally (like I do, and that is only mostly fun).
Similar, the term "God" is pretty useless as well, considering there is no "God" at all, there is only what is apparent to us, and that things are happening, and there is no other God than "things are happening, these are the things that are happening" which is synonymous with life, stuff, chance, luck, reality, nature, whatever.
All sorts of worthless and broad, universally applicative words!
Now there aren't even men and women, a biological man can be a woman, a biological woman can be man. Wiping out words and distinctions and definitions right left and center, making them so broad and inclusive that they become entirely meaningless. Everyone a "sinner", everyone a "hater" of something, everyone "telling lies" and thus "dishonest" and "ignorant" of something.
Love has no meaning, Sorry doesn't mean much either, there is all sorts of sex that doesn't include any genitals now too?
Any sort of "team choice" or attempt at separating oneself out, is like trying to define oneself and distinguish oneself from a big meaningless goop of "everything" and ultimately "nothing".
Similar, the term "God" is pretty useless as well, considering there is no "God" at all, there is only what is apparent to us, and that things are happening, and there is no other God than "things are happening, these are the things that are happening" which is synonymous with life, stuff, chance, luck, reality, nature, whatever.
All sorts of worthless and broad, universally applicative words!
Now there aren't even men and women, a biological man can be a woman, a biological woman can be man. Wiping out words and distinctions and definitions right left and center, making them so broad and inclusive that they become entirely meaningless. Everyone a "sinner", everyone a "hater" of something, everyone "telling lies" and thus "dishonest" and "ignorant" of something.
Love has no meaning, Sorry doesn't mean much either, there is all sorts of sex that doesn't include any genitals now too?
Any sort of "team choice" or attempt at separating oneself out, is like trying to define oneself and distinguish oneself from a big meaningless goop of "everything" and ultimately "nothing".
You'd need a PhD in every form of science and art to intelligently discuss certain aspects of religion. If such discussions were held in the religious forum, this would be known as the science forum, and you'd have to know a lot of math. Obviously we need to oust discussions of intense science, which means that the rank and file of religious posters never get exposure to science.
Increasingly, science is banned from classrooms.
It can be argued that science is a religion of its own. After all, there is no basis for scientists to argue that dark matter is causing an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is merely a belief. Certain aspects of science have been rigorously proven. Other aspects of science are unknown, and theists are quick to jump on the unknown as a pretext for belief.
Some theists are highly educated and intelligent. For example, Einstein (born Jewish, disliked militant atheists, but wanted to be called an agnostic) said that God made huge calculations boil down to simple equations like E = mc^2. Enrico Fermi said that it is the hand of God that moves subatomic particles.
DNA is accepted as court evidence. Faced with DNA proof and evidence of evolution, Pope John Paul had to concede that evolution was likely real. However, the pope still held that it was God who guided the whole process.
In the Dark Ages, scientists were burned at the stake (in a very kind Christian way, of course, screaming in agony).
All should have their say. Atheists and theists should be allowed to discuss.
All should respect each other, and not talk down to each other.
While some atheists disdain ignorant theists, they fail to see the goal of peace, love, caring, and joy.
Humans are inherently flawed.
So, the goal (peace, for example), is often missed or destroyed.
For example, when the al Qaeda made the 911 attack, President George Bush (who was president of the United States, and had also been elected to lead the religious right--first person in history to do both), felt that America would be a sitting duck if it didn't fight back. Thus, peace was destroyed.
W. Bush didn't wait for proof of terrorism from Iraq, and with several nations (notably France) insisting that he can't declare war without proof, W. Bush attacked Iraq. A million people were brutally killed by Bush, and many injured. He made a war zone of their lives for decades, with utilities and food cut off.
We can't fault Christians for wanting peace. We must forgive imperfection (mistake of attacking Iraq), because we are all imperfect (even the atheists and even the scientists).
We must respect the goal, and not the outcome. We must strive for better outcomes and religious or not, we must strive for the goals of the religion (peace, prosperity, health, etc). These are noble goals, no matter what you believe.
Increasingly, science is banned from classrooms.
It can be argued that science is a religion of its own. After all, there is no basis for scientists to argue that dark matter is causing an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is merely a belief. Certain aspects of science have been rigorously proven. Other aspects of science are unknown, and theists are quick to jump on the unknown as a pretext for belief.
Some theists are highly educated and intelligent. For example, Einstein (born Jewish, disliked militant atheists, but wanted to be called an agnostic) said that God made huge calculations boil down to simple equations like E = mc^2. Enrico Fermi said that it is the hand of God that moves subatomic particles.
DNA is accepted as court evidence. Faced with DNA proof and evidence of evolution, Pope John Paul had to concede that evolution was likely real. However, the pope still held that it was God who guided the whole process.
In the Dark Ages, scientists were burned at the stake (in a very kind Christian way, of course, screaming in agony).
All should have their say. Atheists and theists should be allowed to discuss.
All should respect each other, and not talk down to each other.
While some atheists disdain ignorant theists, they fail to see the goal of peace, love, caring, and joy.
Humans are inherently flawed.
So, the goal (peace, for example), is often missed or destroyed.
For example, when the al Qaeda made the 911 attack, President George Bush (who was president of the United States, and had also been elected to lead the religious right--first person in history to do both), felt that America would be a sitting duck if it didn't fight back. Thus, peace was destroyed.
W. Bush didn't wait for proof of terrorism from Iraq, and with several nations (notably France) insisting that he can't declare war without proof, W. Bush attacked Iraq. A million people were brutally killed by Bush, and many injured. He made a war zone of their lives for decades, with utilities and food cut off.
We can't fault Christians for wanting peace. We must forgive imperfection (mistake of attacking Iraq), because we are all imperfect (even the atheists and even the scientists).
We must respect the goal, and not the outcome. We must strive for better outcomes and religious or not, we must strive for the goals of the religion (peace, prosperity, health, etc). These are noble goals, no matter what you believe.
Creationism: looking for an explanation for difficult questions, but without bothering to exercise observation and reason. This is caused by an inability to actually excersie observation and reason, as a result of having no idea about how to do it -- i.e. how science works.
gnostic
The Lost One
From the poll questions about creationists:
Are ignorant of basic science?
I answered “yes”, based on my experiences in this forum and others that I had joined in the past.
And I am not just talking about Evolution or Abiogenesis. I am talking about science in general.
They can't seem to grasp the concept of "Scientific Theory" or that of Falsifiability.
They often confused EVIDENCE with PROOF.
Proof has to mathematical statement or mathematical model (eg equations or formulas or constants). Proof isn't evidence.
They don't understand Radiometric Dating Method.
Are dishonest by default?
I would only answer "no" here. I would give any Creationist the benefit of doubt.
From my own experiences with creationists, I would only considered them dishonest, if they refused to acknowledge their errors, and keep repeating the errors over and over again.
I mean you can explain to them the science, and if they learn from it, that's great. But once they have been "informed", they would have no excuses, using the same tactics in rejecting Evolutionary Biology.
If science of evolution were explained to them, but stubbornly refused to learn, then, and only then, would I consider them dishonest.
And it isn't just Evolution. Even basic science seem to confuse them.
Are a new phenomena?
I wasn’t too sure if you can call 161 years (since the publication of On Origin Of Species in 1859), and the negative reaction towards Evolution, is “new”, but I ticked it anyway.
Creationism is an anti-Evolution movement by ONLY some Christians.
I wrote “ONLY some Christians" were Creationists.
Other Christians, even Darwin's time, actually praised his works on Natural Selection, eg other naturalists, biologists, geologists, etc.
Are ignorant of basic science?
I answered “yes”, based on my experiences in this forum and others that I had joined in the past.
And I am not just talking about Evolution or Abiogenesis. I am talking about science in general.
They can't seem to grasp the concept of "Scientific Theory" or that of Falsifiability.
They often confused EVIDENCE with PROOF.
Proof has to mathematical statement or mathematical model (eg equations or formulas or constants). Proof isn't evidence.
They don't understand Radiometric Dating Method.
Are dishonest by default?
I would only answer "no" here. I would give any Creationist the benefit of doubt.
From my own experiences with creationists, I would only considered them dishonest, if they refused to acknowledge their errors, and keep repeating the errors over and over again.
I mean you can explain to them the science, and if they learn from it, that's great. But once they have been "informed", they would have no excuses, using the same tactics in rejecting Evolutionary Biology.
If science of evolution were explained to them, but stubbornly refused to learn, then, and only then, would I consider them dishonest.
And it isn't just Evolution. Even basic science seem to confuse them.
Are a new phenomena?
I wasn’t too sure if you can call 161 years (since the publication of On Origin Of Species in 1859), and the negative reaction towards Evolution, is “new”, but I ticked it anyway.
Creationism is an anti-Evolution movement by ONLY some Christians.
I wrote “ONLY some Christians" were Creationists.
Other Christians, even Darwin's time, actually praised his works on Natural Selection, eg other naturalists, biologists, geologists, etc.
firedragon
Veteran Member
"]Repeating an error does not make it correct. "
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then its not relevant to this thread.
I'm not. Even Jehovah Witnesses are rights holders.
All humans are human rights holders. Including the Christians. Even if they say things you don't like.
Flat Earthers still reject observable facts, so there is no way to compare them to creationists.
Don't beat us.
that's playing down dangers that exist and can be proven by facts. That's not the same as playing down a risk that solely exists in the imagination of some. Facts are not imagination. If I say "Jesus is savior" this is not playing down any risk, I think. Even if other people, like you, keep saying it is. Hoiwever, you can't back this up by anything and that's the point. It could be dangerous, if you were to be right. But there is a difference between speculation and fact.
No they are not, and they shouldn't be persecuted, I think. Even if they spread information about Jesus the savior that is falsehood according to some.
There is a difference between spreading things that are demonstrably false... and just spreading opinions that might be false but cannot be shown wrong by actual facts.
You can't disprove Jesus as the savior of all. So don't call it a lie. It's your presumption that he is not. That's all.
If you constanty evoke the notion of a "lie", then the onus would be on you to bring actual facts to the table as to prove your point. Since you can't, stop calling others liars. Thank you.
Genesis isn't a myth, I think. You can't back your notion up by observable or testable facts, in my opinion.