If anyone reading this thread belongs to this small and pathetic belief system, I feel justified in belittling their intelligence. They have none apparently and cannot think logically or cohesively.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. And some Navajo Indians believe that the first man and woman were made by Bear Woman from pieces of her own skin, that the four directions are held up by giants, that there are rain gods, shape-shifters, etc.
[QUOTE=Zambini57]
Yeah. And some Navajo Indians believe that the first man and woman were made by Bear Woman from pieces of her own skin, that the four directions are held up by giants, that there are rain gods, shape-shifters, etc.
Why aren’t you making fun of them?
Bottom line, you’re an intolerant ass.
[/QUOTE]
If they still believed in their quaint mythology as fact and were still teaching it as said, I would make fun of them too.
I am comfortable being an intolerant ass by your poor definition.
So is the band name “The Jesus Horses” taken yet? Because it would almost be taking out my old geetar and re-learning the damned chords just to start one. Our first album cover could be the Jesus-cuddling-a-baby-dino pic. Yeah.
Does anyone here play drums and live in the Twin Cities?
[QUOTE=Zambini57]
Yeah. And some Navajo Indians believe that the first man and woman were made by Bear Woman from pieces of her own skin, that the four directions are held up by giants, that there are rain gods, shape-shifters, etc.
Why aren’t you making fun of them?
[/QUOTE]
First, I don’t know of any efforts by people with such beliefs to condemn those who have different religious beliefs to hell. Second, those with Native American beliefs aren’t generally running around complaining that their views are under attack (eg, the “war on Christmas”) even though they have a much, much better case to make. Third, I’m not aware of any efforts by these folks to pressure public schools into requiring prayers to the animal gods before classes, proms, and football games, nor are they agitating for science classes to cover the Bear Woman theory of the universe because evolution is “just a theory.”
To sum up, I have a decent respect for their views because they seem to respect mine (whatever they may be). I have no problem whatsoever with observant Christians, but those who make their religion an issue of the public square shouldn’t be above criticism. That includes biting, socially relevant mockery like the whole “Jesus horses” thing.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
The fact that intelligent people missed the joke is an indication that “Jesus horse” isn’t a whole lot more outlandish than what creationists really do believe.
[/QUOTE]
It might also be an indication that enough people on this board want to believe strawman portrayals of creationists.
There were sufficient numbers of ‘intelligent’ conservatives who believed (or wanted to believe) fake examples of ‘political correctness’ (widespread earnest use of the very term by liberals being an example) to keep such myths alive.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
It was not relayed as fact, it was the title a Pit thread.
[/QUOTE]
The “relay as fact” to which I was referring was the one by fishcycle.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
It is not all Christians being mocked. It is whatever small percent believe the Earth is only 6000 or 10000 years old.
Anyone know what percent these deliberate morons represent of Christianity? I would imagine it is below 10% and hopefully near 1%.
[/QUOTE]
You would be wrong. 47% of Americans agree with this statement:
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
You would be wrong. 47% of Americans agree with this statement: according to this site.
[/QUOTE]
That makes me weep for the future of this country.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
The “relay as fact” to which I was referring was the one by fishcycle.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if there’s a woosh going on, or the misspelling’s an intentional insult, or there’s some in-joke I’m not privy to, but the user name is fishbicycle. I’ve been seeing it spelled fishcycle throughout this thread, and I have a tic in both eyes and a finger now.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
That makes me weep for the future of this country.
[/QUOTE]
It makes one wonder how we can have intelligent discussions of global warming or nuclear power if the public thinks the world is < 10,000 years old. Of course the poll was from 1991 so they at least think the earth is now 10,016 years old.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Anyone know what percent these deliberate morons represent of Christianity? I would imagine it is below 10% and hopefully near 1%.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks Una, I forgot about that article. It doesn’t really say how what percent are “Young Earthers” however, just that far too many believe in creation and humans only being around 10000 or less.
As far as Zoe’s contentions about uneducated southerners however, Cecil supports us elitist North Easterners views.
[QUOTE=Cecil]
If you’ve a mind to put a blue state/red state, slicks/yokels spin on matters, the polls offer lots of ammunition. A 2005 Harris poll reported that 73 percent of Republicans believed in creationism as opposed to 58 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents. (The numbers are higher across the board likely because of phrasing that, again, seemed to equate creationism with belief in God.) This poll also found that people in the northeast and west were much less likely to believe in creationism than those in the south and midwest, and that people over age 55 were much more likely to believe than those under. A 1991 Gallup survey found that college graduates were less than half as likely to believe in creationism as those lacking a high school diploma. Likewise, those with an income greater than $50,000 per year were half as likely to be creationists as those with an income under $20,000. In 1997 Gallup reported that 5 percent of scientists believed in creationism, which depending on how you look at it is either alarming or a relief.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Thanks Una, I forgot about that article. It doesn’t really say how what percent are “Young Earthers” however, just that far too many believe in creation and humans only being around 10000 or less.
[/QUOTE]
I think that it does.
[QUOTE=Cecil]
Participants can choose one of three answers:
* "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." **It's fair to describe this as the creationist view.**
…
Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There’s no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent.
[/QUOTE]
There is a subtle but important difference between thinking that humans are only 10,000 years old and that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I know some Catholics, that feel Adam and Eve were given the Divine Spark between 6000 and 10000 years ago. They believe the human animal does share an ancestor with apes and that the Earth is billions of years old, but “Humans with Souls” were created recently by God.
They would answer the question that Humans are only 10000 years old and yet accept most of science.
That is where I see a difference.
BTW: I know one creationist that believes most of science except evolution, she also does not think Humans and Dinosaurs coexisted.
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
OK. That would be a very subtle difference. I guess the key point is, between you and me, I really don’t find it one whit more defensible.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I already mentioned, I like the compromise that let people keep their faith and still accept scientific theory. It keeps them from supporting those that don’t accept evolution at all and try to keep it from being taught or try to get ID in science classes. I also don’t care much, what they teach in ‘philosophy’ or ‘comparative myths’. Just keep creationism and its disguises out of the science curriculum and I am happy to let those of faith be happy in their faith.
I like mythology enough as an interest that I like the last Pope’s directives that effectively said it is the “Soul” that matters and not the body. He was refreshingly friendly to Science and those of other faiths. I thought he was a rather enlightened Pope.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
It is not all Christians being mocked. It is whatever small percent believe the Earth is only 6000 or 10000 years old.
Anyone know what percent these deliberate morons represent of Christianity? I would imagine it is below 10% and hopefully near 1%.
If anyone reading this thread belongs to this small and pathetic belief system, I feel justified in belittling their intelligence. They have none apparently and cannot think logically or cohesively.
“Jesus Horse” was a funny joke on a show that has not be known for getting many classic funny lines in a long time. While I am surprised a few posters and some people do not realize it was a joke, I understand that they made the mistake as we are talking about a select group of willfully ignorant assholes that want to push their stupid and antiquated beliefs on others.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I get all that. I get what your are saying. I completely understand why someone might think that certain Christians believe in Jesus Horses. I just don’t believe anyone can honestly believe they would actually call dinosaurs Jesus Horses! Right?
I mean, they believe that a serpent tempted Eve in Eden, but I have never heard Christians going around saying, “Yeah, Satan is a Talking Snake…be good or you will go to hell with the Talking Snake.” They *know * that sounds silly.
They wouldn’t call their belief in a human-co-inhabiting dinosaur-like being “Jesus Horse”. For some of us to pretend that they would seems a bit dishonest on our part. We can tease them about Jesus Horses, but none of us should pretend that we think they actually use that term.
> And yes, there are a sizeable number of people who believe that.
No, there aren’t. Are you reading this thread carefully at all? The term “Jesus horses” was first used in a Saturday Night Live Weekend Update sketch by Jimmy Fallon. No one has ever used it seriously.
The King of Soup writes:
> Of course, if someone made a joke, and it was so plausibly similar to my own
> opinions that a lot of people thought it was actually part of my argument, I
> might reconsider my worldview rather than blame others for the fact that it’s so
> easily taken for comedy and vice-versa.
There are already lots of people who are doing precisely this. If you don’t treat other people’s opinions with respect, they won’t treat yours with respect either. They will feel free to lie about your opinions too. I am tired, for instance, of people complaining about political correctness who claim (yes, seriously complain, not just make jokes) about certain supposedly “politically correct” terminology. The problem is that the so-called politically correct terms they cite are ones that no one has ever used seriously. Many of them were made up for a humorous book called The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook by Douglas Beard and Christopher Cerf. Terms that were never used seriously by anyone are now constantly being used as bludgeons in arguments as if someone once seriously used them. For instance, the term “vertically challenged” has never been used as a politically correct term for “short.” It comes from Beard and Cerf. When you lie about your opponents’ opinions in your arguments, you make it impossible for there to be any further progress in the argument. If you lie about them, they will lie about you.
