Why bother?

[Buttons*]

If you were given two choices then, which one would you choose if your life depended on it. Is the Earth 6000 years old? Or isn't it? Are they even close to being equally valid in your mind?

Neither. If my life really depended on such a moronic question, I'd probably rather die.

You said, if it's not harming anyone, why not teach it. I'm telling you - because it is not true - to the degree we know anything, we know that.

We really, really don't though. If you want to believe that, it's fine, and I'm not going to tear you down for it... but it's still a belief, it's not "truth" as truth should be known.

 

[Buttons*]

If two people were arguing over contradictory ideas and I didn't understand those two ideas to a degree where I felt comfortable deciding which one is true, I would certainly not go on arguing that both should be taught in school. Or that it does no harm, whichever one chooses to believe.

I don't think either should be taught in school. I don't think they matter as much as we think they do. It's only a way to fuel the fire of differences and ignorance... obviously, lol.

I have no room in my "open mind" for ideas such as a flat Earth or a mashmallow Moon or my mother being a lizard in disguise. I have an open mind when it comes to evidence, when it comes to new data. If my mother were ever to forget to put on her disguise, I would then consider the idea. If I had some data backing up a flat Earth, I would consider it. Where there is no evidence for an idea, no good arguments in favor of it and a ton of evidence that contradicts the idea, I have no room for it. Neither should you - that is not what having an open mind means.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, or what to believe... but it's funny that for someone who wants me to "open my eyes" and "see the truth" TELLING me what to think or do is pretty eye opening to the kind of person you are.

So please tell me, why should we (not) teach children that the moon might be a giant marsmallow? Why not teach the contraversy? It's harmless, isn't it?

Because there is no controversy in that particular subject. There IS controversy, and a lot we don't know about the beginnings of our existence. But since you can't see the difference, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Autodidact]

I've never met ANY creationist who believes that.

We had one here just recently. He was pretty thorough going, flat-earther, white supremacist, history-denier, anti-evolutionist...very unusual. What was his name?

 

[Buttons*]

We had one here just recently. He was pretty thorough going, flat-earther, white supremacist, history-denier, anti-evolutionist...very unusual. What was his name?

I don't think I ever met the guy... I bet he was entertaining as hell though

 

[Commoner]

Buttons, please answer me: "...how can we tell the people who opted not to take their daughter to the doctor "for whatever reason" they were wrong to do that? Who are we to blame them for her death, when she could have been easily cured with some antibiotics?"

On what grounds can we say they're wrong, if we don't really, really know god doesn't heal people? If there are people who believe it? If there is "contraversy" among the general population?

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons, please answer me: "...how can we tell the people who opted not to take their daughter to the doctor "for whatever reason" they were wrong to do that? Who are we to blame them for her death, when she could have been easily cured with some antibiotics?"

On what grounds can we say they're wrong, if we don't really, really know god doesn't heal people? If there are people who believe it? If there is "contraversy" among the general population?

I didn't realize that this was part of creationism.... could you phrase that in line with the topic of this thread? Then I'd be more than happy to answer you

 

[Commoner]

I didn't realize that this was part of creationism.... could you phrase that in line with the topic of this thread? Then I'd be more than happy to answer you

In other words, you have no idea how to answer it without contradicting yourself, huh?

You asked:

"If someone wants to reject medical treatment for whatever reason, who are you to tell them they're wrong?"

...and I would like for you to back up that position by actually addressing my response. My original point was directed at creationism and how it might cause harm, I'm sure you realize that.

 

[Sunstone]

So, yeah, why even bother?

The only reason I can see to debate creationists (who, so far as I can see, are not often rational) is for the sake of any rational third parties there might be to the debate.

 

[Buttons*]

In other words, you have no idea how to answer it without contradicting yourself, huh?

I have an idea of how to answer, it just has nothing to do with the thread... so make a new thread if you want to talk to me about it. I don't like derailing threads. Especially because I think it's important to understand what's happening in this particular debate. Anyway, please make a thread, and we'll hash it out there.

...and I would like for you to back up that position by actually addressing my response. My original point was directed at creationism and how it might cause harm, I'm sure you realize that.

I realize that you're using other arguments that have nothing to do with creationism itself - rather you're talking about how a belief in God is harmful. That's fine, but it's not the topic of this thread. "Save the children!" "People are choosing to die instead of believing in medicine!" That may be true, but it's not due to a belief in creationism on its own. You should know that.

 

[Commoner]

I have an idea of how to answer, it just has nothing to do with the thread... so make a new thread if you want to talk to me about it. I don't like derailing threads. Especially because I think it's important to understand what's happening in this particular debate. Anyway, please make a thread, and we'll hash it out there.

Listen, you asked for an example of creationism doing physical harm, I supplied it - rejecting necessary medical treatment on the grounds that the treatment was produced with procedures relying on a theory (evolution, adaptation...) that contradicts some points creationists promote.

So, let me give you a very simple, to the point, question:

Would you consider a parent refusing to treat his/her child with medicine he/she believes could only be effective if a scientific theory, demonstrated to be true and accepted by practically every scientist on the face of this earth, were true, if he/she refused to believe that theory, contrary to evidence, solely on the basis of his/her religious belief that the earth was 6000 years old (and therefore evolution could not have happened), to be justified in his/her actions?

I realize that you're using other arguments that have nothing to do with creationism itself - rather you're talking about how a belief in God is harmful. That's fine, but it's not the topic of this thread. "Save the children!" "People are choosing to die instead of believing in medicine!" That may be true, but it's not due to a belief in creationism on its own. You should know that.

My example had everything to do with creationism. My objection to your position that I have no right to tell someone he/she was wrong did not, as it has nothing to do specifically with creationism. Do you really not understand that?

Furthermore, you accusation that I basically argued a belief in god is harmful is false. No, I argued that believing that god will heal you and therefore refusing treatment is harmful. Do you understand the distinction?

I would ask you to please stop dodging questions.

 

[dust1n]

I would like to add that I'm not a creationist and would probably reject necessary medical treatment.

 

[Commoner]

I would like to add that I'm not a creationist and would probably reject necessary medical treatment.

And I drink too much. But not because I have a false belief that it's good for me.

You have every right to refuse treatment (for yourself, at least), that's not an issue. It is "harm" when you do it for the wrong reasons. When, if you knew otherwise, you would choose otherwise.

If you were, for instance, to refuse treatment because you (falsely) believed that it would significantly harm your family in some way - that would be a harmful belief (not only for yourself, but probably also for your family).

So, these are two seperate issues. But, may I ask why you would refuse treatment?

 

[Buttons*]

Listen, you asked for an example of creationism doing physical harm, I supplied it - rejecting necessary medical treatment on the grounds that the treatment was produced with procedures relying on a theory (evolution, adaptation...) that contradicts some points creationists promote.

I have never heard, "I will not accept this treatment because humans were created 6000 years ago!" That doesn't make sense to me. Have you heard it in a realistic setting?

Would you consider a parent refusing to treat his/her child with medicine he/she believes could only be effective if a scientific theory, demonstrated to be true and accepted by practically every scientist on the face of this earth, were true, if he/she refused to believe that theory, contrary to evidence, solely on the basis of his/her religious belief that the earth was 6000 years old (and therefore evolution could not have happened), to be justified in his/her actions?

Look, at this point I really am trying to answer your question honestly, but you keep mixing up apples and oranges! You don't have to be religious to believe that people were created, instead of evolved. I've met people who believe aliens created us... and it's not religious! (Weird, I know.)

But the scientific theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with modern medicine. It's never a point of contention. How would it even come in to play? Religious identification - yes! Creationism - NO! "You have a tumor because of your genes, that have evolved over time, making you more prone to cancer..." That is not something you hear. It's unrealistic, and evolution doesn't matter when treating a patient.

Belief in God = "God will heal me so don't bother with the surgery"
Belief in creationism without God = .... well, you tell me! I certainly don't know. But you're specifically tying God into the creationist idea, which is why you're coming up with these examples. Try one that ONLY deals with creationism.

My example had everything to do with creationism. My objection to your position that I have no right to tell someone he/she was wrong did not, as it has nothing to do specifically with creationism. Do you really not understand that?

Furthermore, you accusation that I basically argued a belief in god is harmful is false. No, I argued that believing that god will heal you and therefore refusing treatment is harmful. Do you understand the distinction?

I undersand what you're saying, but you don't seem to. Try an example where creationism (NOT A BELIEF IN GOD) actually is a problem within the medical realm.

I would ask you to please stop dodging questions.

And here I thought you were the one dodging questions! lol.

 

[Commoner]

I have never heard, "I will not accept this treatment because humans were created 6000 years ago!" That doesn't make sense to me. Have you heard it in a realistic setting?

So, basically, no example will do?

Let me illustrate to you what you've done. You've asked me to provide you with examples of why "thinking you're Jesus" might be harmful. I've given you various answers, but no - you want an example of some actual physical harm to the person that believes he is Jesus. How about killing himself because he believes he's saving humanity. Oh no, but I've never heard anyone killing himself believing they were Jesus. I have never heard "I will jump off the bridge to save humanity!" That doesn't make sense to me. Have you heard it in a realistic setting?

No, I haven't, but so what? If I believed medicine was based on some whacky theory, I would certainly reject treatment - just as I reject homeopathic treatment with their 1 in 10^40 solutions of random, at that point, non existing chemicals. Why would it be illogical for a creationist to reject vaccine against a new strain of a virus? (depending on their particular brand of creationism)

But I think that physical harm resulting directly because of a false belief that the earth is 6000 years old or a belief that you are the son of god is unlikely and the least menacing of all consequences. I don't really understand why I have to argue that false beliefs are a bad thing.

Look, at this point I really am trying to answer your question honestly, but you keep mixing up apples and oranges! You don't have to be religious to believe that people were created, instead of evolved. I've met people who believe aliens created us... and it's not religious! (Weird, I know.)

You don't have to be religious, I agree. What's the point? Without knowing what those beliefs involve, how can I address them? I guess, if you want me to address a specific kind of creationism that I don't know of, you should explain what you mean.

But the scientific theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with modern medicine.

Oh my, you're kidding, right? I mean, you must be? Yeah, you're kidding...

If you're not kidding, I strongly suggest some googling. Or some Yahoo!-ing, whatever floats your boat. Let me just give you one link to start you off:

Of what value is evolutionary biology in medicine? « Why Evolution Is True

Belief in God = "God will heal me so don't bother with the surgery"
Belief in creationism without God = .... well, you tell me! I certainly don't know. But you're specifically tying God into the creationist idea, which is why you're coming up with these examples. Try one that ONLY deals with creationism.

I'm sorry, what is creationism without god? Who exactly is the "creator" then?

My example, although you might find it unrealistic*, deals only with rejecting evolution on the basis of the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old. Where is there god in that example?

*I would have found it equally unrealistic that someone would, in this day and age, pray to heal an infection instead of going to the doctor. But it happens. So maybe I don't understand the nuances of absurdity we're dealing with here.

I undersand what you're saying, but you don't seem to. Try an example where creationism (NOT A BELIEF IN GOD) actually is a problem within the medical realm.

But I wasn't addressing creationism. I was addressing your response which you can't seem to defend.

And here I thought you were the one dodging questions! lol.

Then why have you still not answered the question? Are you planning on doing that or should I stop wasting my time?

 

[Buttons*]

So, basically, no example will do?

Let me illustrate to you what you've done. You've asked me to provide you with examples of why "thinking you're Jesus" might be harmful. I've given you various answers, but no - you want an example of some actual physical harm to the person that believes he is Jesus. How about killing himself because he believes he's saving humanity. Oh no, but I've never heard anyone killing himself believing they were Jesus. I have never heard "I will jump off the bridge to save humanity!" That doesn't make sense to me. Have you heard it in a realistic setting?

Now you're really losing me... I never mentioned Jesus.... I really have no idea what you're talking about now. I'm sorry for that.

No, I haven't, but so what? If I believed medicine was based on some whacky theory, I would certainly reject treatment - just as I reject homeopathic treatment with their 1 in 10^40 solutions of random, at that point, non existing chemicals. Why would it be illogical for a creationist to reject vaccine against a new strain of a virus? (depending on their particular brand of creationism)

But you aren't a creationist... and you can't possibly speak for them. Just because a person thinks that the earth was created rather than evolved doesn't mean they don't believe in viruses and other things that we can actually show within the realm of medicine. Medicine is a fact, one that you experience. Evolution or creationism is not. Which is why I don't buy into either one of them. Besides, every single creationist I know goes to the doctor and accepts treatment for disease. Some are even doctors. It's because evolution has nothing to do with medicine.

But I think that physical harm resulting directly because of a false belief that the earth is 6000 years old or a belief that you are the son of god is unlikely and the least menacing of all consequences. I don't really understand why I have to argue that false beliefs are a bad thing.

Because you don't know without a shadow of a doubt that they're false, so I'm suggesting caution on the subject, instead of ignorant, "I'M RIGHT!" That's all.

You don't have to be religious, I agree. What's the point? Without knowing what those beliefs involve, how can I address them? I guess, if you want me to address a specific kind of creationism that I don't know of, you should explain what you mean.

I have, but I'll say it again.

PURE creationism: The world and/or the things on it were created, rather than brought about from chaos. Simple, and to the point.

I'm sorry, what is creationism without god? Who exactly is the "creator" then?

It could be an alien for all we know... but we don't. I claim not to know. Just because you're taking the Christian context of creationism doesn't mean that every creationist is Christian. Do you understand? There are creationists of many differing creeds, and not all believe the world is 6000 years old. Just Judeo-Christianity. There are some atheists who believe aliens created the world.... *shrug*

My example, although you might find it unrealistic*, deals only with rejecting evolution on the basis of the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old. Where is there god in that example?

Implying that the world is only 6000 years old is a strictly Judeo-Christian concept.... dur?

*I would have found it equally unrealistic that someone would, in this day and age, pray to heal an infection instead of going to the doctor. But it happens. So maybe I don't understand the nuances of absurdity we're dealing with here.

I didn't know that in order to be a creationist, you have to pray for wounds. Interesting though.

But I wasn't addressing creationism. I was addressing your response which you can't seem to defend.

then make another thread about it so we can talk or drop it. I really REALLY want to talk to you about it, so maybe I'll make the thread... does that work for you?

 

[Buttons*]

I would like to add that I'm not a creationist and would probably reject necessary medical treatment.

Interesting... so it's not just creationists... perhaps creationism isn't the only thing keeping people from health care? VERY interesting.

 

[Commoner]

Now you're really losing me... I never mentioned Jesus.... I really have no idea what you're talking about now. I'm sorry for that.

It was an analogy.

But you aren't a creationist... and you can't possibly speak for them. Just because a person thinks that the earth was created rather than evolved doesn't mean they don't believe in viruses and other things that we can actually show within the realm of medicine. Medicine is a fact, one that you experience. Evolution or creationism is not. Which is why I don't buy into either one of them. Besides, every single creationist I know goes to the doctor and accepts treatment for disease. Some are even doctors. It's because evolution has nothing to do with medicine.

Evolution is not a fact? Oh-oh, now that's some fancy creationist-speak right there. Perhaps you should take a bit of time to actually look into it? It's not that hard with all the internets.

Because you don't know without a shadow of a doubt that they're false, so I'm suggesting caution on the subject, instead of ignorant, "I'M RIGHT!" That's all.

So you do agree that false beliefs are bad?

I have, but I'll say it again.

PURE creationism: The world and/or the things on it were created, rather than brought about from chaos. Simple, and to the point.

So a deist would be a creationist as far as you're concearned? I have no issue with that.

It could be an alien for all we know... but we don't. I claim not to know. Just because you're taking the Christian context of creationism doesn't mean that every creationist is Christian. Do you understand? There are creationists of many differing creeds, and not all believe the world is 6000 years old. Just Judeo-Christianity. There are some atheists who believe aliens created the world.... *shrug*

So you expect me to address all of those? Impossible. And not very relevant, since this is not the kind of creationist the OP had in mind.

Implying that the world is only 6000 years old is a strictly Judeo-Christian concept.... dur?

You've asked for an example. If you want an example for a specific type of creationist, you should specify their beliefs.

I didn't know that in order to be a creationist, you have to pray for wounds. Interesting though.

It was a comparison, a similar thingy that an analogy is. I'm getting a bit tired of spelling these things out, I'm sure you know exactly how it was meant.

then make another thread about it so we can talk or drop it. I really REALLY want to talk to you about it, so maybe I'll make the thread... does that work for you?

Sure, no problem. I'm probably going to be pretty busy for the next day or so, so expect a bit of a delay in my responses.

 

[Buttons*]

It was an analogy.



Evolution is not a fact? Oh-oh, now that's some fancy creationist-speak right there. Perhaps you should take a bit of time to actually look into it? It's not that hard with all the internets.



So you do agree that false beliefs are bad?



So a deist would be a creationist as far as you're concearned? I have no issue with that.



So you expect me to address all of those? Impossible. And not very relevant, since this is not the kind of creationist the OP had in mind.



You've asked for an example. If you want an example for a specific type of creationist, you should specify their beliefs.



It was a comparison, a similar thingy that an analogy is. I'm getting a bit tired of spelling these things out, I'm sure you know exactly how it was meant.



Sure, no problem. I'm probably going to be pretty busy for the next day or so, so expect a bit of a delay in my responses.

Sorry, it's a bit late... so it's harder for me to catch on things I usually would... I'll title the thread "Commoner and Buttons on the C v. E debate" in the one on one section. I'll address these tomorrow. I hope you have a good day, and I shall have a good rest. Night!

 

[Mr Cheese]

This is why I don't into go the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" thread. Every thread is the same topic, just like 10 sound-minded people beating the **** out of some creationist in an argument. I don't even know I can really contribute, you guys got it held down pretty well. Personally, I think none of these creationists are going to do much harm, as their rhetoric is generally shred apart so fast, you would have thought it was a CIA document. Their kids will read the obvious eventually, and all the creationists will just die off from old age. 'Destructionist'

:cigar:frubals and a cigar....

exactly, in the realm of online debates, which the thread is about NOThing bigger...
these discussions are pointless....

 

[Mr Cheese]

We can teach creationism in the same class we teach the stork theory of reproduction. Why not give that equal time to sexual reproduction?

totally agree

however the thread is about online discussions....:areyoucra