Creationist -> Retard
- Thread starter Damian Mahadevan
- Start date
- Status
coyote
Sentinel
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 471
The title of this threat is a bit silly, but why would you close it? If there is no interest, it should wander to the bottom of the list automatically after a few weeks, right?
However, if you do close it, that makes it appear like there is something illegal or improper going on here, which, as far as I can tell, it is not. Considering the title, things stayed pretty "civilised".
Also, the question asked has some merrit: what drives someone to believe in something that most people would consider relatively obscure, not to say absurd? The inclusion of the Bible as an axiomatic work of science like none other? A wish to understand without going to the trouble of learning all the necessary mathematics and physics that would be required using the scientific approach? The realisation that despite all our technological and scientific advances, much remains unclear and science does not provide answers to the questions most dear to the person? A purely sociological phenomenon, the thrill of being included in an "exclusive club" of believers?
Those are only a few of the possible approaches, some of which might be completely off, but I believe that there is enough material for a discussion.
The only reason I am not actively participating is that I have a lot of other work to finish and am far from an expert on these topics (also, the whole "is creationism science" debate does not really belong here according to the title and was discussed many times already, but that is just my personal opinion -- at the moment I also think that the creationists should be willing and more able to learn some science. If the main participant on the creationist side can not read long stretches of text and can therefore not look into and at least theoretically accept the scientific arguments, this particular discussion is really kinda meaningless).
If there is anything to change, I would add a question mark:
Creationist -> Retard?
I think this would represent the intentions of the poster, a creationist himself, more accurately
However, if you do close it, that makes it appear like there is something illegal or improper going on here, which, as far as I can tell, it is not. Considering the title, things stayed pretty "civilised".
Also, the question asked has some merrit: what drives someone to believe in something that most people would consider relatively obscure, not to say absurd? The inclusion of the Bible as an axiomatic work of science like none other? A wish to understand without going to the trouble of learning all the necessary mathematics and physics that would be required using the scientific approach? The realisation that despite all our technological and scientific advances, much remains unclear and science does not provide answers to the questions most dear to the person? A purely sociological phenomenon, the thrill of being included in an "exclusive club" of believers?
Those are only a few of the possible approaches, some of which might be completely off, but I believe that there is enough material for a discussion.
The only reason I am not actively participating is that I have a lot of other work to finish and am far from an expert on these topics (also, the whole "is creationism science" debate does not really belong here according to the title and was discussed many times already, but that is just my personal opinion -- at the moment I also think that the creationists should be willing and more able to learn some science. If the main participant on the creationist side can not read long stretches of text and can therefore not look into and at least theoretically accept the scientific arguments, this particular discussion is really kinda meaningless).
If there is anything to change, I would add a question mark:
Creationist -> Retard?
I think this would represent the intentions of the poster, a creationist himself, more accurately
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 471
dteowner
Shoegazer
The intellectual discussion on the topic has already run its course. The only thing left is the flame war. Having been on the wrong side of more than one "lone voice against the horde" debate, I can state quite certainly that they're no fun for either side and quickly devolve to posts with lots of insults and no thought. Damien can't carry the argument and Corwin won't because of his moderator position. That's pretty much the sum total of your opposition around here. It seems to me that we reached that tipping point a couple posts before my request to lock the thread.
I'm all for a good spew on occasion, but when that's all that's left in a thread it's time to move on. Unfortunately, the thread won't die of its own accord because there's plenty of folks that will leave a pointless "steaming pile" post that will generate a brief spasm of "What he said" and "FU". You only need one idiot per month to keep the thread on the front page and there's an endless supply of idiots.
I'm all for a good spew on occasion, but when that's all that's left in a thread it's time to move on. Unfortunately, the thread won't die of its own accord because there's plenty of folks that will leave a pointless "steaming pile" post that will generate a brief spasm of "What he said" and "FU". You only need one idiot per month to keep the thread on the front page and there's an endless supply of idiots.
Squeek
connoisseur of tidbits
What a train wreck this post has been. Hey, Damian: Get a clue and stop bringing this up over here.
Add my vote to the others who think it's a good idea to end this acatharsy of a discussion.
Add my vote to the others who think it's a good idea to end this acatharsy of a discussion.
Just out of curiosity, and out of topic, can't Corwin just join in and have another mod moderate this thread?
dteowner
Shoegazer
The Earth isn't flat? The Earth isn't the center of the solar system? The atom isn't the smallest component of matter? How could anyone support something that most people would consider absurd?
I'll be right in line with the rest of you doing the "well, I'll be damned" head slap if it turns out this creationism stuff has some merit, but let's not get in too big a hurry to act like we definitively know the answer.
dteowner
Shoegazer
He's pretty reluctant to have these discussions even among a small circle of close friends, so I'd say the odds him wading into the muck, even if the moderator complication didn't exist, are pretty slim.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Well, to be fair, it's somewhat different - If you were alive before Darwin and more modern science and you said "I don't believe in God." it was a much harder sell then it is now - no evidence to really back up your claims, and divine intervention really *was* the simplest/best explanation available. Even Dawkins doesn't say he can disprove God - I like how Dawkins put it, he's "technically" an agnostic but for all intents and purposes an atheist.
I can understand that. If Corwin is unwilling to get involved I would agree with you in saying the best thing to do is to close the thread - there's no one to argue for Creationism (and none of us are interested in having a debate-by-proxy with anything Damien presents from Creationists). At this point it's going to just (further) devolve into a few of us saying "Science!" at the top of our lungs.
coyote
Sentinel
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 471
I should have said "what drives someone to believe in something that is almost impossible to accept as true for an unbiased observer given the empirical data we have now" and you were right to correct me, dteowner!
Infact I should have said "what drives someone to advocate a theory as science that is almost impossible to accept as true for an unbiased observer given the empirical data we have now", because in all honesty I never intended to diminish anyone who has deep spiritual beliefs and the way I said it does that.
The only thing that does annoy me is when people try to mix science and religion, because that has the potential of harming our understanding of nature in the long term. It goes against the spirit of impartiality in science that is rather dear to myself and I would assume most honest scientists.
Heh - alright, you got me a second time, here, closing the threat does make sense. Shame on me!
As Rithrandil said, the creationism vs. science debate would be end- and pointless. As I said, a discussion about the underlying reasons for religious fundamentalism might be interesting, but it would need a different title to attract the right people.
Infact I should have said "what drives someone to advocate a theory as science that is almost impossible to accept as true for an unbiased observer given the empirical data we have now", because in all honesty I never intended to diminish anyone who has deep spiritual beliefs and the way I said it does that.
The only thing that does annoy me is when people try to mix science and religion, because that has the potential of harming our understanding of nature in the long term. It goes against the spirit of impartiality in science that is rather dear to myself and I would assume most honest scientists.
Heh - alright, you got me a second time, here, closing the threat does make sense. Shame on me!
As Rithrandil said, the creationism vs. science debate would be end- and pointless. As I said, a discussion about the underlying reasons for religious fundamentalism might be interesting, but it would need a different title to attract the right people.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 471
As Dte said, it's difficult for me as forum mod to enter too many debates, especially if I'm the main voice for one side. Weird as it may sound, I especially try to avoid religion debates simply because I'm obviously heavily biased and as moderator, I attempt to be fair to everyone's point of view. If I buy in with my strong beliefs, then I'm accused of being unfair; abusing my position/authority; etc. Therefore, I choose to be 'hands off' as much as possible!!
- Status