Converting a creationist: worth the bother?

[TheDarkling]

Creationism being taught as science? thats just insane even in Catholic school they dont teach creationism accept along with other creation myths in religious education.

Is teaching it as science actually considered in the US?

[Mr. B]

Creationism being taught as science? thats just insane even in Catholic school they dont teach creationism accept along with other creation myths in religious education.

Is teaching it as science actually considered in the US?

Yes some schools want evolution and creationism taught alongside each other. Or they don't want evolution taught.

[TheDarkling]

Well in UK even schools for a specific religion obey science yet some normal US schools want/ are wanted to teach non-science in a science classroom.

You US folks have some real problems with those wacky fundies.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Why do you guys get so riled up because someone chooses to believe in something different than you?

This is a huge strawman. We are not all riled up cause someone believes something different to us. We get all riled up based on the substance of their beliefs. That is perfectly acceptable, and you know it.

After all, you're getting riled up that we believe Creationists are ignorant of science.

Bullshit. It is not necessarily wrong to judge someone based on his belief system.

Really? As the sole basis for judgement? You will make the judgement that someone is ignorant or naive simply because they have chosen to live their life by a different standard than you? [/quote]

And that strawman is repeated here.

A bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." Notice that the definition, from Dictionary.com, doesn't include the two qualifiers you listed above. If one makes judgements about someone based solely on their religion, then he/she is being prejudiced.

Wrong! If someone makes a judgement based solely on the fact that the set of beliefs are different then they are being a bigot. However, when they judge a person based on the substance of those beliefs it is perfectly acceptable. Or do you think it's wrong to judge KKK members based on their beliefs about blacks and jews?

It mentions nothing about level of knowledge of their belief system or one's ability to call them stupid, ignorant, etc. The very fact that one would treat someone differently simply because of their beliefs makes that person a bigot.

You would love that to be true. That way you could justify your attitude towards athiests. 'Their nothing but a bunch of bigots!'

But it will never be anything more than a lie used to justify the pathetic persecusion complex of the Religious Right.

Please drop your ridiculous blanket generalization that it is wrong to criticize someone's belief system.

I did not say that it is wrong to criticize someone's belief system. What I said is that it is wrong to think lessor of someone and treat them differently based soley on their belief system.[/quote]

One necesarrily comes from the other. Or to paraphrase the opening of 'Even Stevens' segment fromt "The Daily Show" -

That's a stupid belief, and you are a stupid person for believing it.

For example, it would be wrong of me to berate/talk down to homosexuals because they are homosexual. I am not gay and I do not support their claims to unique legal status, but I recognize (tolerate) their right to live their lives as they choose. The same should go for religion, race, gender, whatever.

If you are trying to equal homosexuality with religion the only thing you will accomplish is making yourself look even more stupid than before.

[ArthurDent]

This is a huge strawman.

You people really get hung up on this "strawman" stuff. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

We are not all riled up cause someone believes something different to us.

Really? Then why the talk of invading someone else's webboard because they believe in creationism? They haven't bothered this board, yet many here are wanting to formally invade (they even asked this site's owner if it would be OK). That reaks of intolerance and certainly does not reflect what you claim.

We get all riled up based on the substance of their beliefs. That is perfectly acceptable, and you know it.

Why get riled up at all? They have every right to believe whatever they want and to live free of persecution. Their believing creationism doesn't change your life one bit, other than you let it bother you that they reject evolution.

By the way, you shouldn't pretend to claim what others know or think. The fact is that many who post here make inflamatory statements about those who believe in creationism, not creationism itself. In essence they attack the people, not the belief. But apparently that's OK here, so long as the group attacked does not include the site's owner or admin staff.

After all, you're getting riled up that we believe Creationists are ignorant of science.

Really? What gives you that idea? I haven't used the crutch of profanity or called anyone names. I haven't even posted a rant. I am simply pointing out that some have chosen to attack the people, not the belief. There is a huge double-standard in play here. Just thought I would point that out.

Wrong! If someone makes a judgement based solely on the fact that the set of beliefs are different then they are being a bigot. However, when they judge a person based on the substance of those beliefs it is perfectly acceptable.

That is still acting in a prejudicial manner, which is bigoted. You are passing judgement on them because of one facet of their person, without considering anything else. Based on that prejudicial judgement you will treat them differently.

Or do you think it's wrong to judge KKK members based on their beliefs about blacks and jews?

I personally don't judge people's character at all, though I certainly will take their words and actions into account as I deal with them. But since I don't not know their life story or anything about them other than the fact they affiliate with a group I personally do not agree with, I cannot and will not judge them. If I meet them in the street I will treat them just like I treat everyone else.

You would love that to be true. That way you could justify your attitude towards athiests. 'Their nothing but a bunch of bigots!'

Ah yes, the read something into what was written routine. Quote where I have said a single word about atheists. You can't because I haven't. I haven't made one single comment about them. Butapparently that doesn't matter to you.

But it will never be anything more than a lie used to justify the pathetic persecusion complex of the Religious Right.

Really? What evidence do you have that your claim is true?

One necesarrily comes from the other.

No, not really. One can do something really stupid once but that does not define who or what they are. And just because you personally find their beliefs to be repugnant doesn't mean that they, as people, are repugnant.

Or to paraphrase the opening of 'Even Stevens' segment fromt "The Daily Show" - That's a stupid belief, and you are a stupid person for believing it.

Nice attitude. I can guarantee that it'll bite you in the ass one day. Don't say I didn't warn you.

If you are trying to equal homosexuality with religion the only thing you will accomplish is making yourself look even more stupid than before.

You missed my point entirely. What I wrote was an example. I did not equate homosexuality with religion.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

This is a huge strawman.

You people really get hung up on this "strawman" stuff. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Do you even know what a Strawman is?

We are not all riled up cause someone believes something different to us.

Really? Then why the talk of invading someone else's webboard because they believe in creationism? They haven't bothered this board, yet many here are wanting to formally invade (they even asked this site's owner if it would be OK). That reaks of intolerance and certainly does not reflect what you claim.

When did I claim tolerance for stupid people? Why should I be tolerant to stupid people?

We get all riled up based on the substance of their beliefs. That is perfectly acceptable, and you know it.

Why get riled up at all? They have every right to believe whatever they want and to live free of persecution.

Two points:

1.) What persecution? We're mocking and insulting them.

2.) You do not have the right to believe whatever you want and live without persecution. If you believe in white supremacy then you deserve to be persecuted.

By the way, you shouldn't pretend to claim what others know or think.

Pretend to know? When someone says, 'I'm a creationist.' you know what they believe.

The fact is that many who post here make inflamatory statements about those who believe in creationism, not creationism itself. In essence they attack the people, not the belief.

We're attacking people because they have stupid beliefs.

A not so small difference you fail to understand.

But apparently that's OK here, so long as the group attacked does not include the site's owner or admin staff.

I'd like to see you prove that.

After all, you're getting riled up that we believe Creationists are ignorant of science.

Really? What gives you that idea?[/quote]

I know you better than you know yourself.

I haven't used the crutch of profanity

Since is profanity a goddamned crutch?

I am simply pointing out that some have chosen to attack the people, not the belief.

We are attacking people because of there beliefs. The reason we do that have already been made clear.

Wrong! If someone makes a judgement based solely on the fact that the set of beliefs are different then they are being a bigot. However, when they judge a person based on the substance of those beliefs it is perfectly acceptable.

That is still acting in a prejudicial manner, which is bigoted.[/quote]

You don't get to rewrite the dictionary when it suits your needs. It is only bigotry when you attack someone based on a different set of beliefs, not when you attack someone based on the substance of those beliefs.

You are passing judgement on them because of one facet of their person,

I don't remember that part in the dictionary.

Or do you think it's wrong to judge KKK members based on their beliefs about blacks and jews?

I personally don't judge people's character at all, though I certainly will take their words and actions into account as I deal with them. But since I don't not know their life story or anything about them other than the fact they affiliate with a group I personally do not agree with, I cannot and will not judge them. If I meet them in the street I will treat them just like I treat everyone else.[/quote]

Yeah. Right. So you think we should be tolerant of other peoples intolerance. Bullshit, if someone is wrong you should tell them. You shouldn't accept them for who they are or they'll never change.

You would love that to be true. That way you could justify your attitude towards athiests. 'Their nothing but a bunch of bigots!'

Ah yes, the read something into what was written routine. Quote where I have said a single word about atheists. You can't because I haven't. I haven't made one single comment about them. Butapparently that doesn't matter to you.[/quote]

It's called, 'reading between the lines.' It's not a hard thing to do, people say more than they mean to.

But it will never be anything more than a lie used to justify the pathetic persecusion complex of the Religious Right.

Really? What evidence do you have that your claim is true?[/quote]

Have you read Mike Wong's creationism site? He goes into more detail then I could in this format.

One necesarrily comes from the other.

No, not really. One can do something really stupid once but that does not define who or what they are.[/quote]

It's not one time. It's their belief system, moron. If you are a creationist then you believe God created all life on Earth all the time not just once. Same goes for White Supremists, Homophobes, people who think Baseball is an exciting sport, etc.

Your beliefs define who you are. They are not some mistake you made in your past.

And just because you personally find their beliefs to be repugnant doesn't mean that they, as people, are repugnant.

Two points:

1.) I don't find creationism repugnant. Just incredably stupid.

2.) If someone's beliefs are repugnant, that makes them repugnant.

Or to paraphrase the opening of 'Even Stevens' segment fromt "The Daily Show" - That's a stupid belief, and you are a stupid person for believing it.

Nice attitude. I can guarantee that it'll bite you in the ass one day.[/quote]

It already has. I used to believe all sorts of bullshit when I was a kid. Until someone pointed out that it was bullshit and I stopped believing it.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Could you be a little more self righteous? Prick.

If you are trying to equal homosexuality with religion the only thing you will accomplish is making yourself look even more stupid than before.

You missed my point entirely.[/quote]

No I didn't. You 'point' was just too weak to bother with. How you say you treat homosexuals has nothing to do with how you should treat people based on their beliefs.

What I wrote was an example. I did not equate homosexuality with religion.

Yes you did. You compared your outward treatmeat of homosexuals with my treatment of creationists.

[Wicked Pilot]

Houston, the creationist have landed.

[IDMR]

Observe the astute employment of sarcasm below. I am positively devastated!

Wow! You got all that from the few words I wrote? It's nice to know that you don't jump to conclusions.

Let's go over the facts, shall we?

<Snip>

As for my earlier comment, it relates to the attitudes that many display in regards to others and their beliefs/opinions. You may not like them. You may vehemently disagree with them, but they have the same rights as you or I to think what they will and to vocalize it. Some here believe that to be religious makes one lesser...and therefore respect goes right out the window. And as soon as you judge people because of their belief system you become a religious bigot...which is evident in how some talk about others here.

That is to what I spoke. Those who posted as if they know me or to what I reffered are incorrect.

He is of the opinion that one should extend tolerance to the terminally ignorant - and their views should be given equal representation, if not greater.

So it appears that he is of the opinion that everybody has the same right to express their beliefs and opinions, regardless how one might disagree with it. So far, so good. And then he went right on and say that we are religious bigots because we judge people because of their belief system, (and are loud about it, no doubt). So, despite the noble sentiment of the freedom of expression, one should keep one's disagreement to oneself! In other words, if the 'vocalize' their beliefs, they are merely exercising their right to express their opinion, when we criticise those self-same rights, we are religious bigots.

So in a gist, those of these view should be given equal representation, tolerance to the exclusion of others. My representation appears to be quite accurate, after all, no?

[IDMR]

Well in UK even schools for a specific religion obey science yet some normal US schools want/ are wanted to teach non-science in a science classroom.

You US folks have some real problems with those wacky fundies.

Another thing to be thankful for in Old England, anyhow.

[Antediluvian]

Well in UK even schools for a specific religion obey science yet some normal US schools want/ are wanted to teach non-science in a science classroom.

You US folks have some real problems with those wacky fundies.

Unfortunately. They try to use politics to push their beliefs onto others as well, which of course applies to this creationist crap.

Annoying, to say the least.

[IDMR]

when I say age of the Earth, I mean just that. The age of the universe I believe is billions of years old. In Genesis, for example, it gives no time duration between the creation of the universe, and the formation of earth from lifeless rock.

Good, we have established the criteria.

As for how I arrived at that date, is because first off, there's actually some historical evidence dated back far enough to counter the counting-of-the-geneologies model (6-10,000 years). Of course, geneologies weren't meant to be counted up, and usually weren't complete. (oftentimes they'd simply put down inportant or prominent generations)

This is a not unreasonable method to devise an absolute lower limit, if nothing else.

Also, taking into account that some things on Earth were started off at a somewhat "matured" state, meaning trees full grown, animals, and humans at maturity after Creation, not just starting from infancy for everything. Next, the flood would give an even more skewed appearance of things.

Now, we have the additional information that rather than arriving at this figure independently, the truthfulness of the Bible is a premises. Nothing wrong with that per se, as long as you accept that it is an article of faith rather than a rational conclusion from evidence.

Also, I believe that is long enough for humankind to devolve from the state they were in toward the beginning, where they had better genes to begin with. This is my belief, as if they were created, it wouldn't really make sense to give them flawed genes to begin with.

Surprisingly, you are right in it that should we be in a state of 'perfect genes' (whatever the devil that means), a hundred thousand years, or some two thousand generation, at twenty years a generation, is more than enough to create some degree of genetic 'signal degradation'. Despite that, however, you do not follow the logical next step - that of evolution.

As for the holes in evolution theory, I'd say just to get things started that abiogenesis seems highly unlikely (this isn't technically evolution theory, but is a necessary step), what "selection methods" do you have before you arrive at life? even to get to the simplest self-replicating equivalent of an RNA strand, the probability of that happening randomly in chemicals are astronomical, (you may see, I've been swayed by the intelligent design theory.)

This is a common misconception. One does not arrive at life immediately, or even the most primitive Prokaryotes, but simple organic molecules. And it has been observed experimentally. As for RNA molecule, that is yet another misconception - they need not make their appearance until rather later.

As well, the probability arguement is somewhat skewed. First of all, there are only a limited number of ways molecules can combine. Combust Hydrogen and you *always* get water. This coupled with the absolute vastness of the pre-historic ocean and the number of random reactions which takes place, the artificially high number seems not to be so incredible, after all.

I have seen some sites which have explained this to a degree, but even those leave holes, such as going from some hydrocarbon that can replicate itself perfectly, to a simplified RNA in a couple of "steps".

Don't you see that not only is it not necessary to go directly to the complex molecules present in modern day lifeforms in order for the reaction to occur? As well, those holes you referred to are something of an irrational demand - after all, would you demand yet another step after the said hole is filled, somewhat like how some creationists demand to see the fossil record of the so-called 'missing link' every time a new one is found?

I gotta sign off now, so I'll just start you off with that, I'll be back for more later.

You would be quite welcome to.

[IDMR]

You US folks have some real problems with those wacky fundies.

Unfortunately. They try to use politics to push their beliefs onto others as well, which of course applies to this creationist crap.

Annoying, to say the least.[/quote]

Given that they hold that they are, if not the actual, then spiritual descendent of the pilgrims who came to America to escape persecution, I'd say it is ironic as well as hypocritical.

[ArthurDent]

Do you even know what a Strawman is?

I've been posting at various boards for quite some time now. I know what a "strawman" is. Frankly, I don't care whether anyone thinks what I say is "strawman" or not. My comments were not in regards to the main topic of this thread, but address another issue which is related. So of course you're going to say that they're "strawman."

When did I claim tolerance for stupid people?

It is self-evident that you don't tolerate those who believe differently than you. You are a shining example of what I am talking about. You think that it's fine and dandy to mistreat people because you think they are stupid becuase you think their beliefs are stupid.

Why should I be tolerant to stupid people?

Why should anyone tolerate you? You aren't perfect. You make mistakes. There may be people that believe you to be stupid for whatever reason. Do you want them to treat you how you treat those who subscribe to creationism? If you want respect, you had better be prepared to give it.

Two points: 1.) What persecution? We're mocking and insulting them.

Some consider those to be mild forms of persecution. Certainly many historical instances of persecution started with verbal abuse.

2.) You do not have the right to believe whatever you want and live without persecution.

Yes we do, so long as do not violate the rights of others. Holding a religious belief certainly violates no one's rights.

Pretend to know? When someone says, 'I'm a creationist.' you know what they believe.

OK, lay it out. Tell me exactly what I believe.

We're attacking people because they have stupid beliefs.

And that's what I'm calling you on. But you have the right to be a jerk and apparently it's OK at this board.

A not so small difference you fail to understand.

I understand completely. You think it's OK to mock people because of the beliefs they hold instead of just talking about the beliefs. I disagree with you. There is a thing called respect. There is another called civility. There is yet another called diplomacy. You don't practice any of the three.

I'd like to see you prove that.

Give me a little time to root around a bit more. It takes time because you have to filter out all the nonsense about one sci fi being better than another.

I know you better than you know yourself.

That's an easy thing to say, a difficult thing to prove. But you will try, won't you?

Since is profanity a goddamned crutch?

Since I actually developed a vocabulary beyond that of a sixth-grader.

We are attacking people because of there beliefs. The reason we do that have already been made clear.

Yes, I know. Prejudice and bigotry based on religious beliefs. It is quite clear, thank you.

You don't get to rewrite the dictionary when it suits your needs.

That's funny, especially considering that I posted a definition straight from Dictionary.com.

It is only bigotry when you attack someone based on a different set of beliefs, not when you attack someone based on the substance of those beliefs.

Believe what you will, I guess. But maybe you should really look into what prejudice and bigotry and intolerance mean. You'll need to know those things if you really want to succeed in the real world.

I don't remember that part in the dictionary.

Intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs; The quality of being intolerant; refusal to allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect. From dictionary.com

You are treating people based upon one facet - their religious beliefs.

Yeah. Right. So you think we should be tolerant of other peoples intolerance.

In a word, yes.

Bullshit, if someone is wrong you should tell them.

My opinion of right and wrong doesn't seem to matter, does it? I believe that a wrong is being committed at this site. People who believe in creationism are free targets for flames, even invasions of other boards for no other reason than because you think they are stupid. Yet when I stand up for what I believe in, specifically doing what you just said I should do, I get responses like yours.

You shouldn't accept them for who they are or they'll never change.

I do accept that they have the same rights that I have. I will not berate them because they believe differently than I.

It's called, 'reading between the lines.' It's not a hard thing to do, people say more than they mean to.

If I had meant to insult atheists, I would have. It would have been plain and stated directly.

Have you read Mike Wong's creationism site? He goes into more detail then I could in this format.

Why would I waste my time with that? If I want info opposing creationism I'll go to experts in the field, not some random guy on the internet who happens to run a website.

It's not one time. It's their belief system, moron.

And now the unimaginative personal insults fly. Yet another example of what I speak to.

If you are a creationist then you believe God created all life on Earth all the time not just once.

Really? He couldn't have created one thing now and another thing then? Seems to me that you are using a very specif set of beliefs that not all creationists share. As I said, there is more to creationism than the 10,000 year/strict interpretation side.

Your beliefs define who you are. They are not some mistake you made in your past.

They are part of who we are, yes. Are they the sum total? I don't believe so.

I don't find creationism repugnant. Just incredably stupid.

And therefore it's OK to treat them as lessor people. Or maybe not as people at all...

If someone's beliefs are repugnant, that makes them repugnant.

I disagree. There are people who like to drink human urine. I personally find that act to be repugnant, though I don't find the people repugnant. Most of the ones I know who are into that are actually very nice people.

It already has. I used to believe all sorts of bullshit when I was a kid. Until someone pointed out that it was bullshit and I stopped believing it.

I was reffering to the time when you are out in the real world and you demonstrate there the same attitude you demonstrate here. You won't be able to hold many jobs.

Could you be a little more self righteous? Prick.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl later. We'll see how good I do, OK?

No I didn't. You 'point' was just too weak to bother with.

Yet you have this whole long post that proves otherwise.

How you say you treat homosexuals has nothing to do with how you should treat people based on their beliefs.

It has to do with prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. It was an example, not a statement of parity between the two things.

Yes you did. You compared your outward treatmeat of homosexuals with my treatment of creationists.

Well, you seem to get it here, but not in the previous statement. Hmm...

Houston, the creationist have landed.

It's a shame, no? That we came and ruined your lovefest?

So it appears that he is of the opinion that everybody has the same right to express their beliefs and opinions, regardless how one might disagree with it.

That is my opinion, and standard.

So far, so good.

If that were actually practiced here.

And then he went right on and say that we are religious bigots because we judge people because of their belief system, (and are loud about it, no doubt).

I said some were, yes.

So, despite the noble sentiment of the freedom of expression, one should keep one's disagreement to oneself!

No, I did not say that. If you would care to read what I wrote you would see that I said debate the issue all you want, not the people participating in the debate. I don't care if you shoot a zillion holes in creationism as you see it. Your opinions are just that, your opinions. Buit when you focus not on the topic but on the people instead, you cross a line of propriety.

In other words, if the 'vocalize' their beliefs, they are merely exercising their right to express their opinion, when we criticise those self-same rights, we are religious bigots.

Incorrect. You are acting bigoted when you single the people out for attack, scorn, mockery, etc, based soley on the fact that they hold those beliefs. I wouldn't have said a word if the only comments were about the issue and not the people.

So in a gist, those of these view should be given equal representation, tolerance to the exclusion of others.
Nope, that's not the gist.

You not only missed the target, you also missed the side of the barn.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Depends I asked can we convert one to Gold.....

Oh wait, that's already been done.

BROTHERS!, Oh Gullibiule ones, Reach Deep into your Pockets, and give your money to me, so that I may continue to do the lords work!

Amen

Now make those checks out to:
The Right To Arm Bears
Box 1234
Yosemite Califonia, 12345-6789

Thank you for your support

[Nick]

Summarising (let me know if I've unduly distorted either position here):

Arthur Dent:

• Any worthwhile dialogue requires politeness, civility and diplomacy.
• Dismissing an individual, when all you know about them is the label 'creationist', is bigotry.
• Dismissing 'creationists' as a group, is bigotry.
• All criticism should be directed at beliefs, and never at the individual holding the beliefs
• Mockery and abuse directed at individual's holding stupid/irrational/evil beliefs is persecution.

C.S.Strowbridge:

• Dismissing an individual on the substance of their beliefs, rather than on a label, is not bigotry.
• If a belief is self-evidently stupid/irrational/evil, mockery and abuse directed at holders of that belief is an acceptable response.
• Their beliefs are sufficiently central to creationists existence that this abuse is reasonable.

The unfortunate fact is, that there are people who exhibit bigoted attitudes towards creationists. They assume that, because someone holds creationist beliefs, then the individual is automatically stupid, irrational and illogical. This is, quite simply, an unjustifiable generalisation, and people who make it are behaving in a bigoted manner.

It is unjustified for two simple reasons:
1. Firstly, the term 'creationist' means different things to different people. On the one hand, is someone who believes that God triggered the Big Bang, and then left the thing to run on its own a creationist? On the other hand, at the other end of the creationism spectrum, we have the people who sincerely espouse 'Young Earth' theories. Merely knowing that someone can be described as a 'creationist' tells you little about the substance of their beliefs - the first position I describe is a perfectly reasonable one, held by many Christian scientists. The Young Earth position is pretty much indefensible (unless one portrays God as a great practical joker).
2. There are many possible reasons for professing creationist beliefs. Some people might genuinely believe, and no amount of reason will convince them otherwise. Others may have accepted the belief as part of their acceptance of a welcoming group. Avoiding family conflict, ignorance, effective indoctrination, many, many, other explanations than arrant stupidity.

So, the generalisation fails to hold, and dismissing 'creationists' as a group is a fine example of bigotry. However, that does not mean that no abuse is justified.

Dent quite correctly points out that worthwhile dialogue requires politeness, civility and diplomacy. But what about when the other side shows none of these characteristics? What if they have shown themselves to be completely immune to the benefits of rationality and logic? Worthwhile dialogue is an impossibility. Could we just dismiss them, and move on? Well, sure, but where's the fun in that? Where diplomacy and logic has failed, perhaps vitriol and abuse may find a way. However it pans out, it's almost certainly going to be entertaining.

The important point though, is that it has to be personal. You can't just flame someone for being a creationist. You can flame them for being stupid, irrational and wilfully ignorant. The bigotry comes in when someone makes the leap in logic from "Appears to hold at least some creationist beliefs" to "Is stupid, irrational and wilfully ignorant". (A hard-core creationist is likely to betray stupidity, irrationality and willful ignorance very quickly. However, to avoid accusations of prejudice, it is necessary to allow each and every one sufficient slack to hang themselves).

Does any of this make creationist beliefs any less stupid? No. But Dent is right - it is possible to be bigoted in abusing creationists. So, in general, mock and abuse the belief. When a particular believer betrays stupidity, irrationality and wilful ignorance, then (and only then) they become fair game. From that point on, the choice to walk away or switch to a full verbal assault is entirely a matter of personal style.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Do you even know what a Strawman is?

I've been posting at various boards for quite some time now. I know what a "strawman" is. Frankly, I don't care whether anyone thinks what I say is "strawman" or not. My comments were not in regards to the main topic of this thread, but address another issue which is related. So of course you're going to say that they're "strawman."

That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when you lie about the position of your opponent and attack that claim instead.

When did I claim tolerance for stupid people?

It is self-evident that you don't tolerate those who believe differently than you.[/quote]

Wrong, I am tolerant of people who believe differently than me, unless those beliefs are stupid, dangerous or really funny.

You are a shining example of what I am talking about. You think that it's fine and dandy to mistreat people because you think they are stupid becuase you think their beliefs are stupid.

I'm making fun of them, I'm not lynching them! Sure I treat people differently based on the substance of their beliefs. But what the hell is wrong with that? If I find out someone thinks they drive better a little drunk, I'm not going to use them as my ride home from a party. I'll also call them a fucking idiot, but that's just part of my unique charm.

Why should I be tolerant to stupid people?

Why should anyone tolerate you? You aren't perfect.[/quote]

I never claimed I was perfect. ... Ok, I have. On many, many occasions.

You make mistakes. There may be people that believe you to be stupid for whatever reason. Do you want them to treat you how you treat those who subscribe to creationism?

If they think something I belief / say / do is stupid I want them to tell me. If they can convince me that it is stupid I'll change, therefore becoming a better person. That's how it should work.

If you want respect, you had better be prepared to give it.

Respect is something you earn. Not a birthright right

Two points: 1.) What persecution? We're mocking and insulting them.

Some consider those to be mild forms of persecution.[/quote]

And those people should get a life.

Certainly many historical instances of persecution started with verbal abuse.

Slippery splope fallacy.

2.) You do not have the right to believe whatever you want and live without persecution.

Yes we do, so long as do not violate the rights of others. Holding a religious belief certainly violates no one's rights.[/quote]

Two more points:

1.) I'm talking about white supremesists, not religious wackjobs.

2.) If those religious beliefs include, 'Kill the infidel' (and all Abrahamic religions do) then they do violate the rights of others.

Pretend to know? When someone says, 'I'm a creationist.' you know what they believe.

OK, lay it out. Tell me exactly what I believe.[/quote]

You believe in creationism in one of it's various (and scientifically ignorant) forms.

We're attacking people because they have stupid beliefs.

And that's what I'm calling you on. But you have the right to be a jerk and apparently it's OK at this board.

That's OK in real life too. Or do you never leave your basement?

A not so small difference you fail to understand.

I understand completely. You think it's OK to mock people because of the beliefs they hold instead of just talking about the beliefs. I disagree with you. There is a thing called respect. There is another called civility. There is yet another called diplomacy. You don't practice any of the three.

Two points:

1.) Respect is something you earn.

2.) Civility and diplomacy just get in the way. I've got a point to make, so I'm just going to make it. I'm not going to sugar coat my oppinions to avoid offending people, cause it's not worth my time and it's insulting to the person I'm debating.

I'd like to see you prove that.

Give me a little time to root around a bit more. It takes time because you have to filter out all the nonsense about one sci fi being better than another.[/quote]

Ok.

I know you better than you know yourself.

That's an easy thing to say, a difficult thing to prove. But you will try, won't you?[/quote]

No, cause it's called a joke. Lighten up.

Since is profanity a goddamned crutch?

Since I actually developed a vocabulary beyond that of a sixth-grader.[/quote]

No, you fell for the bullshit that words can hurt you. Guess what, they can't. No amount of, 'Fuck you!' will break your bones. Hearing 'Bullshit!' will never cause you to recoil in pain.

We are attacking people because of there beliefs. The reason we do that have already been made clear.

Yes, I know. Prejudice and bigotry based on religious beliefs. It is quite clear, thank you.[/quote]

No, we look at what they belief and judge them on that. It's not cause they are different, it's cause they are wrong. But of course you can't accept that.

You don't get to rewrite the dictionary when it suits your needs.

That's funny, especially considering that I posted a definition straight from Dictionary.com.[/quote]

But you changed it a bit, didn't you. Dictionary.com says it's bigotry when you treat someone differently cause they have different beliefs. Your definition of bigotry includes treating someone different based on the substance of their beliefs. Which isn't bigotry, it's common sense.

If you knew someone who thought 2 + 2 = 5, would you let them do your taxes?

It is only bigotry when you attack someone based on a different set of beliefs, not when you attack someone based on the substance of those beliefs.

Believe what you will, I guess. But maybe you should really look into what prejudice and bigotry and intolerance mean. You'll need to know those things if you really want to succeed in the real world.[/quote]

I'm the one using dictionary definitions. Not this bullshit definition where everyone from Ghandi to Hilter must be treated the same, with respect even if they don't deserve it.

I don't remember that part in the dictionary.

Intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs; The quality of being intolerant; refusal to allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect. From dictionary.com

You are treating people based upon one facet - their religious beliefs.[/quote]

Two points:

1.) The one facet part is not in the dictionary.

2.) I do recognize differences of opinions, and when those opinions deserve respest they get it. When they don't deserve respect I'm not going to give it. It's insulting to those that do deserve respect.

Yeah. Right. So you think we should be tolerant of other peoples intolerance.

In a word, yes.[/quote]

In four words, 'You're a fucking moron.'

Bullshit, if someone is wrong you should tell them.

My opinion of right and wrong doesn't seem to matter, does it?[/quote]

Yes it does. You just haven't made you case very well.

I believe that a wrong is being committed at this site. People who believe in creationism are free targets for flames, even invasions of other boards for no other reason than because you think they are stupid.

Can you think of a better reason?

Yet when I stand up for what I believe in, specifically doing what you just said I should do, I get responses like yours.

So? I don't get the problem. If I'm allowed to insult people based on the stupidity of their beliefs, they are allowed to insult mine. And when they insult me, I'm allowed to insult them back. And vice versa.

Otherwise it's hypocracy.

You shouldn't accept them for who they are or they'll never change.

I do accept that they have the same rights that I have. I will not berate them because they believe differently than I.[/quote]

You really should. It's fun.

It's called, 'reading between the lines.' It's not a hard thing to do, people say more than they mean to.

If I had meant to insult atheists, I would have. It would have been plain and stated directly.[/quote]

You're attacking us for being intolerant. Isn't that intolerant itself?

Have you read Mike Wong's creationism site? He goes into more detail then I could in this format.

Why would I waste my time with that?[/quote]

Cause it would prove you wrong?

If I want info opposing creationism I'll go to experts in the field, not some random guy on the internet who happens to run a website.

Have you read his site? No you haven't. But you are judging it. Isn't that bigotry. Yes it is.

It's not one time. It's their belief system, moron.

And now the unimaginative personal insults fly. Yet another example of what I speak to.[/quote]

And you ignore my point. Style over substance fallacy.

If you are a creationist then you believe God created all life on Earth all the time not just once.

Really? He couldn't have created one thing now and another thing then? [/quote]

No, no, no. Your belief that God created all life happens all the time. You don't just believe that once. Sorry for the confusion.

Seems to me that you are using a very specif set of beliefs that not all creationists share. As I said, there is more to creationism than the 10,000 year/strict interpretation side.

Those are Young Earth Creationist. Different, far more scary, set of people.

Your beliefs define who you are. They are not some mistake you made in your past.

They are part of who we are, yes. Are they the sum total? I don't believe so.[/quote]

I do. Your beliefs difine your actions. Unless you're a complete hypocrite, which means you deserve even less respect.

I don't find creationism repugnant. Just incredably stupid.

And therefore it's OK to treat them as lessor people. Or maybe not as people at all... [/quote]

Yes. If you are less intelligent than the average person, you are a lessor person.

If someone's beliefs are repugnant, that makes them repugnant.

I disagree. There are people who like to drink human urine. I personally find that act to be repugnant, though I don't find the people repugnant. Most of the ones I know who are into that are actually very nice people.[/quote]

You know people that drink human urine?!?! Why? Is it a sexual fetish or some health phase? If either way, smack them around and tell them urine is nor healthy for them.

It already has. I used to believe all sorts of bullshit when I was a kid. Until someone pointed out that it was bullshit and I stopped believing it.

I was reffering to the time when you are out in the real world and you demonstrate there the same attitude you demonstrate here. You won't be able to hold many jobs.[/quote]

I'm not stupid, I know when to keep my opinions to myself. If they are my boss I'll treat them differently, cause my income depends on it.

Could you be a little more self righteous? Prick.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl later. We'll see how good I do, OK?[/quote]

Now you're getting into the swing of things.

How you say you treat homosexuals has nothing to do with how you should treat people based on their beliefs.

It has to do with prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance.[/quote]

Except when the treatment is based on the substance of thier beliefs it isn't prefudice, bigotry or intolerant.

[IDMR]

That is my opinion, and standard.

So far, so good.

If that were actually practiced here.

Some chose to practise this, some do not. Unlike you we tolerate their freedom of expression.

I said some were, yes.

Good, more ground work done.

So, despite the noble sentiment of the freedom of expression, one should keep one's disagreement to oneself![/quote]

No, I did not say that. If you would care to read what I wrote you would see that I said debate the issue all you want, not the people participating in the debate. I don't care if you shoot a zillion holes in creationism as you see it. Your opinions are just that, your opinions. Buit when you focus not on the topic but on the people instead, you cross a line of propriety.

So it is alright to accuse people of bigotry and stamp on them but not of creationism and stamp on them? We mock creationists after they state their views and their reason for them. If they prove irrational, then we stamp on them. Or if you prefer we will limit our stamping to their beliefs from now on.

Incorrect. You are acting bigoted when you single the people out for attack, scorn, mockery, etc, based soley on the fact that they hold those beliefs. I wouldn't have said a word if the only comments were about the issue and not the people.

We would be acting bigoted if we attack people based solely on their belief. But we do not. We attack them based on the substance of their belief. Are you of the opinion that if someone were to hold irrational, harmful or dangerous beliefs we are still not free to express our disagreement with them? Please, your strawman is *really* battered, couldn't you at least use a new one?

You not only missed the target, you also missed the side of the barn.

Of course, since there are no barn in the vicinity (or are you typing in the barn?), that would not be surprising.

[Darth Wong]

The unfortunate fact is, that there are people who exhibit bigoted attitudes towards creationists. They assume that, because someone holds creationist beliefs, then the individual is automatically stupid, irrational and illogical. This is, quite simply, an unjustifiable generalisation, and people who make it are behaving in a bigoted manner.

Wrong. Any creationist is, by definition, either stupid, ignorant, or irrational, or in many cases, all three. Take your pick. The intellectual shortcomings of creationism are well documented, by myself and countless others.

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that it's wrong to accuse someone of stupidity if he thinks 2+2=7.

1. Firstly, the term 'creationist' means different things to different people. On the one hand, is someone who believes that God triggered the Big Bang, and then left the thing to run on its own a creationist? On the other hand, at the other end of the creationism spectrum, we have the people who sincerely espouse 'Young Earth' theories. Merely knowing that someone can be described as a 'creationist' tells you little about the substance of their beliefs - the first position I describe is a perfectly reasonable one, held by many Christian scientists. The Young Earth position is pretty much indefensible (unless one portrays God as a great practical joker).

What? The term "creationist" applies only to people who deny the validity of evolution theory in favour of divine intervention. There is no such thing as a creationist who believes in evolution! You are actually trying to lump deistic evolutionists into your definition of "creationists!" Your definition is so ridiculously broad that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the proper definition. According to Merriam-Webster, creationism is: "doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

"Intelligent design" creationists barely fit into that definition, hence the fact that one must always preface the term with the "intelligent design" qualifier. However, deistic evolutionists certainly do not fall under that definition.

2. There are many possible reasons for professing creationist beliefs. Some people might genuinely believe, and no amount of reason will convince them otherwise. Others may have accepted the belief as part of their acceptance of a welcoming group. Avoiding family conflict, ignorance, effective indoctrination, many, many, other explanations than arrant stupidity.

Nobody says that the intellectual weakness of a creationist must be stupidity rather than ignorance or irrationality.

So, the generalisation fails to hold, and dismissing 'creationists' as a group is a fine example of bigotry.

Bullshit. Creationists are ignorant, stupid, irrational, or all three. Anyone who fits the term "creationist" merits those insults. This is not bigotry; they have chosen to profess beliefs which are manifestly stupid.

Dent quite correctly points out that worthwhile dialogue requires politeness, civility and diplomacy.

Wrong. Worthwhile dialogue requires useful information and rational thought. Politeness, civility, and diplomacy are nice, but not necessary. It is completely possible for someone to be rude, yet make valid points. It is completely possible to learn something new from such a person. Are you familiar with the "style over substance" fallacy?

People like Arthur Dent are intellectually overwhelmed in the company of normal people, so they adopt the "style over substance" fallacy in order to attack their critics rather than the substance of their arguments. Given a gullible and/or irrational audience, the "style over substance" fallacy is a highly effective tool for undercutting your opponent's credibility; try to focus the audience's attention on his bad manners so that they will be distracted from the fact that your argument is completely empty. The more clever users of this trick will even go so far as to develop finely honed tricks for needling their opponents so as to infuriate them into rude behaviour, so that they can swing their "style over substance" big guns into action (see Timothy Jones). This creates a bizarre situation where rational observers can see that they lost, but irrational observers think they made some pretty good points about the red herring of the other guy's manners.

But what about when the other side shows none of these characteristics? What if they have shown themselves to be completely immune to the benefits of rationality and logic? Worthwhile dialogue is an impossibility ... Where diplomacy and logic has failed, perhaps vitriol and abuse may find a way.

Complex question fallacy: you are trying to quietly merge manners and logic into a single concept, which they are most definitely not.

The important point though, is that it has to be personal. You can't just flame someone for being a creationist. You can flame them for being stupid, irrational and wilfully ignorant. The bigotry comes in when someone makes the leap in logic from "Appears to hold at least some creationist beliefs" to "Is stupid, irrational and wilfully ignorant".

Why? That is absolutely correct, disregarding your inaccurate definition of "creationist".

Does any of this make creationist beliefs any less stupid? No. But Dent is right - it is possible to be bigoted in abusing creationists.

Suuuure, it's "bigotry" to make fun of someone who doesn't believe in evolution ... just like it's "bigotry" to make fun of someone who doesn't believe in math or rain.

[ArthurDent]

That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when you lie about the position of your opponent and attack that claim instead.

Lie? Where have I lied? It was said that people are attacked here because of what they believe...the substance of their beliefs is how it was put, IIRC. I have not lied.

Wrong, I am tolerant of people who believe differently than me, unless those beliefs are stupid, dangerous or really funny.

Nice qualifier...which only goes to show that you do prejudge based on certain criteria and treat people accordingly.

I'm making fun of them, I'm not lynching them! Sure I treat people differently based on the substance of their beliefs. But what the hell is wrong with that? If I find out someone thinks they drive better a little drunk, I'm not going to use them as my ride home from a party. I'll also call them a fucking idiot, but that's just part of my unique charm.

I bet that gets you all the girls...

If they think something I belief / say / do is stupid I want them to tell me. If they can convince me that it is stupid I'll change, therefore becoming a better person. That's how it should work.

You'll have to forgive me but I doubt that statement is sincere...based on earlier comments.

Respect is something you earn. Not a birthright right

I believe otherwise.

And those people should get a life.

What evidence do you have that they don't have a life? Other than you're belief that they are inherently stupid, of course.

Slippery splope fallacy.

Historical fact.

I'm talking about white supremesists, not religious wackjobs.

So? As long as they don't violate the rights of others they can hold whatever views they want.

If those religious beliefs include, 'Kill the infidel' (and all Abrahamic religions do) then they do violate the rights of others.

Only if acted upon.

You believe in creationism in one of it's various (and scientifically ignorant) forms.

I actually believe that matter was organized, not created, but that's really neither here nor there. I really don't consider myself to be a "creationist" using the definition that was posted by Wong. I certainly don't agree with those that believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. But I really don't think it matters either way.

That's OK in real life too. Or do you never leave your basement?

No, it's better down here in the dark.

Civility and diplomacy just get in the way. I've got a point to make, so I'm just going to make it. I'm not going to sugar coat my oppinions to avoid offending people, cause it's not worth my time and it's insulting to the person I'm debating.

I didn't say you had to sugar coat anything. My issue was attacking the person, not the issue. As I said, had you guys just torn into the issue of creationism I wouldn't have said a word.

No, cause it's called a joke. Lighten up.

Ah, humor. I've heard of that before...

No, you fell for the bullshit that words can hurt you. Guess what, they can't. No amount of, 'Fuck you!' will break your bones. Hearing 'Bullshit!' will never cause you to recoil in pain.

Trap? Not really. Profanity is easy, unchallenging. It's easy to cuss someone out using explicatives. That's why it's a crutch.

No, we look at what they belief and judge them on that.

Without knowing anything else about them.

It's not cause they are different, it's cause they are wrong.

In your opinion.

But of course you can't accept that.

No, I cannot accept treating people differently based soley on their beliefs.

But you changed it a bit, didn't you. Dictionary.com says it's bigotry when you treat someone differently cause they have different beliefs. Your definition of bigotry includes treating someone different based on the substance of their beliefs. Which isn't bigotry, it's common sense.

I see no difference. You are treating them differently based upon their beliefs...based on substance or not is irrelevant to me.

If you knew someone who thought 2 + 2 = 5, would you let them do your taxes?

No, but it wouldn't be a reason for me to treat him badly.

I'm the one using dictionary definitions. Not this bullshit definition where everyone from Ghandi to Hilter must be treated the same, with respect even if they don't deserve it.

I think people should be judged for what they do, not what they think.

The one facet part is not in the dictionary.

This phrase is the key: "refusal to allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect..."

I do recognize differences of opinions, and when those opinions deserve respest they get it. When they don't deserve respect I'm not going to give it. It's insulting to those that do deserve respect.

If we are talking about opinions, I agree with you. If we are talking about the people who hold those opinions, I disagree with you.

In four words, 'You're a fucking moron.'

And you were doing so well...

Yes it does. You just haven't made you case very well.

My apologies if I haven't made my position clear.

Can you think of a better reason?

Yes, I can. Like if a bunch of creationists invaded this site. I would fully support an counter-strike on theirs'. I haven't seen that though...

So? I don't get the problem. If I'm allowed to insult people based on the stupidity of their beliefs, they are allowed to insult mine. And when they insult me, I'm allowed to insult them back. And vice versa.

I don't see why you have to insult people at all. Why does it have to be aimed at the person? Why can't you just focus on the issue instead?

You really should. It's fun.

That's not my idea of fun...unless its a sarcasm contest between friends who have that understanding.

You're attacking us for being intolerant. Isn't that intolerant itself?

Possibly, sure. Maybe I am guilty of that. If I am then I apologize.

I'm asking you to be considerate and courteous of others...to take into account that they are people with thoughts and feelings. If you want to disagree with what they believe, fine, but I see no reason to attack the people based on those beliefs. I mean, if you really want to try to dissuade them from a certain view, wouldn't it be better if you didn't attack? Attacks lead to a bunker mentality where people hunker down more and more. So viewing it that way, attacking the individual instead of the idea is counter-productive...if the goal is to get them to change their view.

Cause it would prove you wrong?

Prove me wrong? About what? Something I don't believe in?

Have you read his site? No you haven't.

I've actually read a lot of what Wong has up. I sympathize with he and his wife for what they went through to be able to be married. It's a shame that her relatives couldn't be accepting and welcome him into their family. I have also read the rants page - and I agree with many of his positions. I have read a lot of the hate mail he has received. But no, I haven't really delved into his thoughts on creationism.

But you are judging it. Isn't that bigotry. Yes it is.

Point taken.

No, no, no. Your belief that God created all life happens all the time. You don't just believe that once. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, OK. My bad.

Those are Young Earth Creationist. Different, far more scary, set of people.

The few I know are quite nice. Not one of them has told me I'll burn in hell for not believing what they believe.

I do. Your beliefs difine your actions. Unless you're a complete hypocrite, which means you deserve even less respect.

That discounts emotion. They are also part of who we are. Emotional reactions can cause people to act contrary to their beliefs.

Yes. If you are less intelligent than the average person, you are a lessor person.

I think that's a dangerous way to approach people because you have to assume their level of intelligence...and you are basing that assumption on just one aspect of their being.

You know people that drink human urine?!?! Why?

I work for an airline and we seem to have more than our fair share of people with weird sexual fetishes that work here...

If either way, smack them around and tell them urine is nor healthy for them.

They know how I feel about it.

I'm not stupid, I know when to keep my opinions to myself. If they are my boss I'll treat them differently, cause my income depends on it.

So you are a different person at work? That must be difficult.

Now you're getting into the swing of things.

Ah, I'll keep that in mind.

Except when the treatment is based on the substance of thier beliefs it isn't prefudice, bigotry or intolerant.

I honestly don't see a difference. You are still treating people differently based soley on what they believe.

So it is alright to accuse people of bigotry and stamp on them but not of creationism and stamp on them? We mock creationists after they state their views and their reason for them.

Really? So why the talk of invading another board, who haven't come here at all? That certainly doesn't mesh with what you say.

Or if you prefer we will limit our stamping to their beliefs from now on.

That would be appreciated...though I seriously doubt it would really happen.

We would be acting bigoted if we attack people based solely on their belief. But we do not. We attack them based on the substance of their belief.

I see no difference. You are attacking them because they believe something.

Are you of the opinion that if someone were to hold irrational, harmful or dangerous beliefs we are still not free to express our disagreement with them?

With the belief? Sure, disagree away. Call it whatever you want. It's when you focus on the individual that I have issues.

People like Arthur Dent are intellectually overwhelmed in the company of normal people, so they adopt the "style over substance" fallacy in order to attack their critics rather than the substance of their arguments.

"intellectually overwhelmed" I didn't know that about myself...

[Zoink]

I have to agree with Wong. Anyone dismissing evolution is ignoring observational fact, that is irrational.


This was an interesting article responding to creatist non-sense:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... DF&catID=2

[Nick]

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that it's wrong to accuse someone of stupidity if he thinks 2+2=7.

Not what I meant to say. . . once we're talking about the proper definition of the word creationist, then, yes, it is necessary be stupid, wilfully ignorant or utterly irrational to maintain that belief in light of the abundance of evidence against it. I'm merely trying to point out that it is possible to leap to unjustified conclusions about people based on the knowledge that some aspects of their beliefs are creationist. With an international board, language and cultural differences mean opportunities for misunderstanding abound. What differentiates that from bigotry is the acknowledgement of the mistake once it is recognised - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid making the unjustified (or, rather, not-yet-completely-justified) assumption in the first place.

What? The term "creationist" applies only to people who deny the validity of evolution theory in favour of divine intervention. There is no such thing as a creationist who believes in evolution! You are actually trying to lump deistic evolutionists into your definition of "creationists!" Your definition is so ridiculously broad that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the proper definition. According to Merriam-Webster, creationism is: "doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

I wasn't intending to say I define the term that way (I would answer my own rhetorical question about deistic evolution with "Hell, no!"). But I have gotten into a number of arguments on these boards because I and the other party were using the same term, but meaning different things by it. I think anyone who uses the term 'creationism' in the way I describe has their definition wrong (for all the reasons you list) - but that doesn't mean it is never going to happen. If all we have to go on is the label, it simply isn't enough - we need to know the beliefs behind it (on the forums, this is usually self-evident pretty damn quick).

"Intelligent design" creationists barely fit into that definition, hence the fact that one must always preface the term with the "intelligent design" qualifier. However, deistic evolutionists certainly do not fall under that definition.

No argument here. . . if someone tried to define the word the way I did in an actual argument, I'd probably be as unhappy about it as you were when I appeared to subscribe to the notion.

2. There are many possible reasons for professing creationist beliefs. Some people might genuinely believe, and no amount of reason will convince them otherwise. Others may have accepted the belief as part of their acceptance of a welcoming group. Avoiding family conflict, ignorance, effective indoctrination, many, many, other explanations than arrant stupidity.

Nobody says that the intellectual weakness of a creationist must be stupidity rather than ignorance or irrationality.

I certainly can't think of any specific examples of anyone making that mistake (at least, not out loud. . . I've certainly assumed it on occasion, before I noticed what I was doing). However, that doesn't prevent us from reminding ourselves why assuming 'creationist = stupid' is fallacious (there is an obvious correlation - but it falls short of an identity relationship).

So, the generalisation fails to hold, and dismissing 'creationists' as a group is a fine example of bigotry.

Bullshit. Creationists are ignorant, stupid, irrational, or all three. Anyone who fits the term "creationist" merits those insults. This is not bigotry; they have chosen to profess beliefs which are manifestly stupid.

I agree. As soon as their beliefs become evident, they're fair game. The only time there is a problem is when all we have to go on is the word 'creationist' and there's reason to believe it may have been misused (I didn't recognise the qualification about the misused definition last time). And that scenario doesn't happen very often (if ever).

Dent quite correctly points out that worthwhile dialogue requires politeness, civility and diplomacy.

Wrong. Worthwhile dialogue requires useful information and rational thought. Politeness, civility, and diplomacy are nice, but not necessary. It is completely possible for someone to be rude, yet make valid points. It is completely possible to learn something new from such a person. Are you familiar with the "style over substance" fallacy?

True, my mistake. The word 'requires' definitely overstates the point. Perhaps, 'is easier to come by when exercising' in place of 'requires'. I tend to be biased by the fact that, for me, switching to abuse mode generally indicates I've given up on the possibility of learning anything useful from that person. At that point I figure it might be worth checking to see if the clue-by-four has any effect.

People like Arthur Dent are intellectually overwhelmed in the company of normal people, so they adopt the "style over substance" fallacy in order to attack their critics rather than the substance of their arguments. Given a gullible and/or irrational audience, the "style over substance" fallacy is a highly effective tool for undercutting your opponent's credibility; try to focus the audience's attention on his bad manners so that they will be distracted from the fact that your argument is completely empty. The more clever users of this trick will even go so far as to develop finely honed tricks for needling their opponents so as to infuriate them into rude behaviour, so that they can swing their "style over substance" big guns into action (see Timothy Jones). This creates a bizarre situation where rational observers can see that they lost, but irrational observers think they made some pretty good points about the red herring of the other guy's manners.

All true. However, the point I'd make is that there has to be a reason for choosing a personal style which is vulnerable to such style-over-substance attacks. Personal preference and sheer entertainment are the two main reasons I can see - if I'm actually setting out to persuade someone, then abuse just muddies the waters. On the other hand, if persuasion isn't a factor, and it's just a matter of playing to the gallery or personal entertainment (like, say, a 'discussion' with Shaolin or Priesto), then I perfectly understand the use of personal abuse - I do it myself.

Unfortunately, an abusive style limits the number of people it is possible to have a discussion with - because a lot of people just can't cope with abusive language (especially if its directed at them). Or is it the idea of catering to other people's weaknesses that you object to? (For mine, if catering to certain weaknesses will get me the result I want without too much hassle to me, then I'll cater away - assuming the relevant course of action is morally acceptable)

But what about when the other side shows none of these characteristics? What if they have shown themselves to be completely immune to the benefits of rationality and logic? Worthwhile dialogue is an impossibility ... Where diplomacy and logic has failed, perhaps vitriol and abuse may find a way.

Complex question fallacy: you are trying to quietly merge manners and logic into a single concept, which they are most definitely not.

More like accidentally merging the two. . . I didn't mean to imply that switching to abusive language involves abandoning logic (although, now that you point it out, the original phrasing appears to suggest that). Regardless, abusive language does mean that a lot of people are going to stop listening - so if you actually want them to listen, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to use abusive language.

The bigotry comes in when someone makes the leap in logic from "Appears to hold at least some creationist beliefs" to "Is stupid, irrational and wilfully ignorant".

Why? That is absolutely correct, disregarding your inaccurate definition of "creationist".

The 'and' is wrong (to actually follow from the premise it has to be an 'and/or'), but other than that minor semantic quibble, you're absolutely right.

In replying to this I've realised that the difference I described above is a fundamental one between a hasty conclusion and actual bigotry. What Dent is trying to call bigotry on our part is, at worst, a hasty conclusion - by demonstrating intelligence, rationality, and knowledge, it is possible for a creationist to clear their name of charges of stupidity, irrationality and wilful ignorance (of course, if they clear their name of all three, they aren't likely to be a creationist any more. . .). To my mind, bigotry (as opposed to a misjudgment) necessarily implies a failure to reconsider your position in the light of actual evidence - something which my previous post failed to take into consideration.

Does any of this make creationist beliefs any less stupid? No. But Dent is right - it is possible to be bigoted in abusing creationists.

Suuuure, it's "bigotry" to make fun of someone who doesn't believe in evolution ... just like it's "bigotry" to make fun of someone who doesn't believe in math or rain.

Damn, sometimes I try to be too understanding and accepting for my own good. . . as you can see, I've since been persuaded I was being overly charitable (Dent's last post merely confirmed me in my change of position. . .)

As for the rest of it (personal abuse as a debating tactic) well, when to employ it or not is, as far as I'm concerned, a matter of personal style. I think it's generally unnecessary, and can too easily be used to obscure the issues under discussion. The opponent generally has irrationality and invincible ignorance on their side - why go out of your way to give them a tool which might actually allow them to appear like anything other than the ignorant idiot they are? Like so many other things, I guess it really depends on what your goals are and who your intended audience is. (Something Dent does not seem to appreciate. . .)

[Darth Wong]

I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't be bothered to quote and answer everything you said. Mostly, I think we're actually on the same page now, although I would still insist that the statement "creationists are stupid, irrational, or ignorant" cannot be considered bigoted just because some people don't know what "creationist" means. The statement is completely valid when using the dictionary definition of "creationist", and the fact that some people don't know this definition is their problem, not ours.

Damn, sometimes I try to be too understanding and accepting for my own good. . . as you can see, I've since been persuaded I was being overly charitable (Dent's last post merely confirmed me in my change of position. . .)

You're trying to be a nice guy. That's commendable, but not always warranted.

As for the rest of it (personal abuse as a debating tactic) well, when to employ it or not is, as far as I'm concerned, a matter of personal style.

Personal abuse is not always a debating tactic. If you answer a point logically, and then proceed to append some personal abuse as a reaction to "invincible ignorance", it supplements the argument rather than replacing it.

I think it's generally unnecessary, and can too easily be used to obscure the issues under discussion. The opponent generally has irrationality and invincible ignorance on their side - why go out of your way to give them a tool which might actually allow them to appear like anything other than the ignorant idiot they are? Like so many other things, I guess it really depends on what your goals are and who your intended audience is. (Something Dent does not seem to appreciate. . .)

I have always felt that if someone is irrational enough to subscribe to the "style over substance" fallacy, then he's a lost cause anyway, so the fact that my debating style bothers that person is of little concern to me.

[IDMR]

Really? So why the talk of invading another board, who haven't come here at all? That certainly doesn't mesh with what you say.

We have seen their beliefs (or are you conveniently forgetting that there is a thread with many, many quotes on it?). We therefore go to stamp on their beliefs. Notice that nowhere did I say that I would not go bother people if they don't bother me, I merely say that I don't stamp on people because of their beliefs until I have seen their beliefs.

That would be appreciated...though I seriously doubt it would really happen.

So do I. I can make no gurantees about the others, but I shall do so myself, or at least try to. You know how difficult it is to stamp on another's belief without stamping on them accidentally - or having them take it as personal attacks anyway, don't you?

I see no difference. You are attacking them because they believe something.

There is a difference. The difference is that we take the time to know what is it that they belief first, as opposed to just jump in and charge (that's good for debating them in the future as well, besides). And of course we are attacking them! What is wrong with it? We attack their beliefs, and they are free to attack *ours*! This is the beauty of the freedom of speech, my friend, or would you prefer that we keep all our disagreements to ourselves and stifled in our own, private shell where there is no outside interference?

With the belief? Sure, disagree away. Call it whatever you want. It's when you focus on the individual that I have issues.

We don't focus on the people, merely their belief. If they take it personally, that's just too bad.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Ok, this message is too big. I'm cutting it down to a slightly more managible size.

That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when you lie about the position of your opponent and attack that claim instead.

Lie? Where have I lied? It was said that people are attacked here because of what they believe...the substance of their beliefs is how it was put, IIRC. I have not lied.

No, you said we attack people cause they believe in different things. Not cause of the substance of those differences.

Wrong, I am tolerant of people who believe differently than me, unless those beliefs are stupid, dangerous or really funny.

Nice qualifier...which only goes to show that you do prejudge based on certain criteria and treat people accordingly.

No shit. That's called real life. You can't treat everyone the same, it's unfair to the people who deserve respect.

If they think something I belief / say / do is stupid I want them to tell me. If they can convince me that it is stupid I'll change, therefore becoming a better person. That's how it should work.

You'll have to forgive me but I doubt that statement is sincere...based on earlier comments.

It's happened in the past.

Respect is something you earn. Not a birthright right

I believe otherwise.

And you're wrong.

If those religious beliefs include, 'Kill the infidel' (and all Abrahamic religions do) then they do violate the rights of others.

Only if acted upon.

This coming from a guy who doesn't like us insulting creationists. At least we've never said we should kill them all.

Civility and diplomacy just get in the way. I've got a point to make, so I'm just going to make it. I'm not going to sugar coat my oppinions to avoid offending people, cause it's not worth my time and it's insulting to the person I'm debating.

I didn't say you had to sugar coat anything. My issue was attacking the person, not the issue.

I'm doing both. Hence the phrase, 'That's a stupid belief and you're a stupid person for believing it.'

No, we look at what they belief and judge them on that.

Without knowing anything else about them.

If people think 2 + 2 = 5, what else do you need to knwo before you are justified in called them stupid?

But you changed it a bit, didn't you. Dictionary.com says it's bigotry when you treat someone differently cause they have different beliefs. Your definition of bigotry includes treating someone different based on the substance of their beliefs. Which isn't bigotry, it's common sense.

I see no difference. You are treating them differently based upon their beliefs...based on substance or not is irrelevant to me.

But it is to the dictionary.

If you knew someone who thought 2 + 2 = 5, would you let them do your taxes?

No, but it wouldn't be a reason for me to treat him badly.

That's your perogative, but you'd be justified in calling him stupid.

I'm the one using dictionary definitions. Not this bullshit definition where everyone from Ghandi to Hilter must be treated the same, with respect even if they don't deserve it.

I think people should be judged for what they do, not what they think.

There actions are based on their beliefs.

Yes it does. You just haven't made you case very well.

My apologies if I haven't made my position clear.

You've made it clear, you just haven't justified it very well.

Can you think of a better reason?

Yes, I can. Like if a bunch of creationists invaded this site. I would fully support an counter-strike on theirs'. I haven't seen that though...

No shit. I'm not a wuss. If someone attacks me, if I don't think they're justified, I'm going to attack back. Even if they are justified, I'll attack back. I like a good flame war. But that's cause I'm an asshole.

So? I don't get the problem. If I'm allowed to insult people based on the stupidity of their beliefs, they are allowed to insult mine. And when they insult me, I'm allowed to insult them back. And vice versa.

I don't see why you have to insult people at all.

That's cause you the Balless Wonder.

You're attacking us for being intolerant. Isn't that intolerant itself?

Possibly, sure. Maybe I am guilty of that. If I am then I apologize.

Buy a pair you fucking wuss. Jesus Christ man. Do you let everyone walk all over you?

I'm asking you to be considerate and courteous of others...to take into account that they are people with thoughts and feelings.

I do take that into account, it makes the insults more fun.

I'm not stupid, I know when to keep my opinions to myself. If they are my boss I'll treat them differently, cause my income depends on it.

So you are a different person at work? That must be difficult.

Nope, it's very easy for me to modify my behavoir based on my surroundings. It's all due to my high empathy.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I try to be funny and it bombs.

So much for that attempt.

Seriously, I am beginning to thing that Televangelists are people who took Janis Joplin's "Mercedes Benz" to heart.