Two things. First how and why I react when I see a creationist. I would not know someone is a creationist unless they brought it up. This would mean that a) they feel strongly enough about their beliefs to mention it to me, in which case I have every right to agrue with them. b) we were already discusing the theory of evolution, which gives me the right to continue my argument. If they started becoming as defensive as you, no offense intended, protesting that hey didn’t want to convice anyone etc, etc. After time I would drop it.
Why would I even argue with someone who isn’t going to fight for change? 1) I don’t know that, they could very well be mistaken, or they could have every intent of not changing someone’s point of view now… Later in life that could change. Yosemitebabe, maybe in 5 years you will decide that it’s very important to start teaching creationism in schools. At that point in time it would make every difference what your beliefs were. I liken it to racism. Someone can protest all they want that they aren’t hurting anyone that it’s just their beliefs, but at some point that could change. ** I am not saying you are anything like a racist. Creationism is a much milder form.** Although if someone believes that GOD created people, there is nothing to prevent them from believing that he created some inferior.
I guess that’s my main point. Sure you can say that it doesn’t make a difference now, that you aren’t hurting anyone, that it’s just your belief. but how can we be sure, you can change, issues can change, your beliefs can color other beliefs tht you might act on.
Hmmm…I’ve never started a veggie thread, just participated in a few.
[/quote]
Seems to me that yosemitebabe cares a lot about people caring a lot… Oxymoronic, no?
[/quote]
I care a lot about not being bugged. I care a lot about being able to mention, in passing, (or because it cannot be avoided, like the fact that I am vegetarian when I’m at the dinner table) without having to be attacked, or get in some huge debate on the spot. I started two threads (and also one about PCs and Macs, you missed that one!) to point this out. It was sort of cathartic for me. My point was to try to point out to people that just because someone is “different” doesn’t mean that you get to jump on them and bug them to death about it.
A person can reveal that they are vegetarian, for instance, without wanting to debate it. The fact may come out during a meal with strangers…do they have to debate it on the spot because some yahoo wants to ask them all sorts of rude questions? A person may reveal their musical tastes in passing. Are they obligated to argue about it forever? A person may mention their belief in Creation (or religious belief) in passing, when the subject comes up. Does that mean that they must debate it ad nauseum? Right there? Until the “other side” is satisfied that the debate is over? Is not a person entitled to smile politely and say “to each his own”? It isn’t like I’m saying “I’m right, you’re wrong - don’t talk to me”, I’m just saying that I’d like to be able to believe what I believe without being forced to debate it at the drop of a hat because someone else wants to argue.
If I cared about what people thought about Creation per se, I’d be discussing the details of Creation on this thread. I am really discussing people Minding Their Own Business. And it comes in many shapes and forms. With musical choices, food choices, computer choices. Yes, that I care about. If it’s “circular thinking” to be that way, guilty as charged.
Now, as far as any other discussions about the OP, I think all discussion has pretty well been exhausted already.
Polydactyl Cats Unlimited
“A Cat Cannot Have Too Many Toes”
Dear Lord, you’re coming out! (As a Creationist, that is… :D)
Seriously, I feel for you. In a neat little book I have called “The Gay Guy’s Guide To Life” (and no, it’s not written by me :D), one of the entries is, “Coming out shouldn’t be a political statement, but until society changes, accept that it is.”
Esprix
Ask the Gay Guy! (or, if you prefer the Jesusfied version, Asketh the damn Priest Guy!)
test post
Okay… As long as we’re clear…
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three days, 19 hours, 9 minutes and 22 seconds.
151 cigarettes not smoked, saving $18.99.
Life saved: 12 hours, 35 minutes.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Satan, while I am always glad to see somebody stop smoking, please don’t double-post just to add your “smoke-free” text at the end. (Referring to your posts of 9:22 and 9:24 yesterday morning.)
Thanks.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Wow-comments from 2 moderators on 1 post-I’m flattered! To Gaudere-I thought yosemitebabe’s original question had to do with some non-believers in creation taking it as some kind of personal affront that she simply holds the beliefs that she does.(Maybe I missed something).I thought she was asking why they feel the way they do,and I gave my opinion.I do think,though,judging by some of the messages I’ve read,that I had a point.My point was that they have a fervor that is religious in its intensity on this issue,and that their "religion"is science-or reason,or secular humanism,or whatever you want to call it.All humans have deeply held convictions in something,even if only in themselves.Some people have a deeply held conviction that Christianity is wrong and their beliefs are right,and they want us all to know it.Their belief that God doesn’t exist is as passionate as someone else’s belief that He does.The very thought of someone being so ignorant as to believe that God created the universe is repugnant to them,and they can’t bear the thought of such a belief infecting the schools of this country.They may not know HOW the universe got here,exactly,but they know for a fact that God didn’t create it,because God doesn’t exist!The Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary has as one definition of religion: “a set of beliefs regarding the cause,nature and purpose of the universe”.Also,“something one believes in and follows devotedly”.
Well,a lot of people believe in the so-called scientific theories of the origin of the universe(and the human race),and hold to them devotedly.That,coupled with the fervor and certainty with which they cling to these beliefs,sounds like a religion to me.Heck,a lot of Christians could take lessons from them in that area!As for Darwin-as-messiah,he started the ball rolling with evolution, didn’t he?Maybe “prophet” would be a better word to use.
Evolutionists,devout followers of Jesus Christ…when the same New Testament that declares Jesus declares that Adam & Eve were in the garden,and calls Adam the first man…hmmm,interesting,but that would be a whole 'nother debate!
By the way,thanks for the threads.
To David B.-Me,act high & mighty? God forbid!
I didn’t mean to.I’m lowly and humble-God is High and Mighty.
Actually,I’ve never brought Jesus up in a conversation with someone,until this thread.I’ve just observed that the very mention of “Christ”-unless it’s being used to swear with-seems to make a lot of people very uncomfortable.Interesting phenomenon.The mention of, say,Julius Caesar,or someone else from the period,causes nary a problem.
I need to read up on what subject? Darwin?
Sure-recommend a title.Or maybe you’d care to read us an inspiring selection from The Gospel According to Charles yourself.Oh,and as for evolution and creation in the schools, I say they should BOTH be taught,side-by-side with absolutely no editorial comment by the teacher.Truth will out.“The fool has said in his heart,there is no God…”.(Psalm 14:1).
Brian,
Let me offer a friendly suggestion. Mix in a few paragraph breaks and some blank lines. It will make your posts easier to read, thereby improving my ability to debunk it. 
But of course you are incorrect. I am quite certain in my belief of the theory of gravity, or that 2+2=4. You might say I hold onto them devotedly. Yet in no way is this a religion. The same can be said for astrophysics and evolution. Each of these “beliefs” has a great deal of evidence to support it. And that is why they are taught in science classes.
Actually, no. The view that species change over time was common prior to Darwin. Writings by Lamarck, Linnaeus, Lyell and even Aristotle preceded Darwin, though Lamarck was probably the first to give evolution a firm scientific foundation. Darwin, as all good scientists do, simply built upon the available ideas and evidence with his own, titled The Origin of Species. You should try reading it at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/preface.html prior to critiquing it.
Please, allow me to be the first to ask – WTF are you talking about?
I have seen the mention of “Christ” make many people very comfortable. I have seen swearing make others decidedly uncomfortable. I myself once became very nervous at the mention of Julius Caesar, as I had not read the assigned book on the topic and was about to flunk a test. All of this illustrates what your passage did – which is exactly nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Sure-start with the above mentioned book by Darwin. You may find any of the popular books by Stephen Jay Gould an easier read (such as The Panda’s Thumb : More Reflections in Natural History. ) If you are specifically interested in human evolution, I find Leakey’s Origin of Humankind to be illuminating. If book-hunting is too taxing, try browsing the Talk Origins site at http://www.talkorigins.org for a fountain of information about evolution.
This is exactly why I fight so hard to stamp out ignorance. It could negatively impact the quality of scientists we produce in the future, and I want to make sure this NEVER happens. Science class should always be about things we have evidence for, not idle speculation and wishful thinking. If you wish to have a separate class called Creation Myths, be my guest. But be prepared to see your particular story discussed alongside the multitude of other creation myths that have existed throughout history.
yosemitebabe, obviously there are a great many people who believe as Brian White does regarding education. You seem to be complaining about a select few individuals that intrusively push their viewpoints on you. Is it really so hard to understand how a few overzealous rational thinkers extrapolate from the available evidence (e.g. Kansas and recently Oklahoma) and try to convince you to see things logically?
Yes, it is hard to understand. Because my whole point is - I MAKE SURE these “rational thinkers” know that I have no resemblance at all to the Kansas and Oklahoma zealots. And that isn’t enough for some of them. Hell, if I’m the biggest “problem” they can dredge up (a Creationist who is minding her own business and staying out of everyone’s way) then they must be having a really dull time of it. There must be plenty of Creationist zealots out there to “save” and to argue with! Go bug them instead and leave me alone!
Read the entire thread here - I make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of pushing my beliefs on anyone. And I don’t have kids, I won’t vote for pro-Creation policies, yadda yadda yadda. (I don’t need to repeat it all again, do I? I’ve done enough of that already!)
Oh, by the way, I find the phrase “try to convince you to see things logically” incredibly arrogant. I know you don’t mean it that way, but please, spare me. I don’t really want to be “saved” by anyone. (Which is kind of what you make it sound like.) Thanks but no thanks.
Polydactyl Cats Unlimited
“A Cat Cannot Have Too Many Toes”
I guess I don’t see why it should be so hard to understand. I can easily comprehend why a religious person would try to continue a debate with me even though I find their view illogical and had expressed a desire for them to cease. But if the debate does continue, I have to share some of the blame, for it is difficult for them to continue the conversation without my replies.
What if your conversation with me revealed that I held, despite all evidence to the contrary, that 2+2=7 or the earth was flat? Would you not feel at least some desire to persuade me otherwise? If for no other reason than to gaze upon this trainwreck of irrationality?
Let me restate that any conversation can cross the line into rudeness and result in one person trying to impose their will upon another. In these cases, you should inform the person of their mistake and perhaps terminate the discussion. But the mission to stamp out ignorance can be a strong motivator, sometimes resulting in a few bruised egos.
You make a point - if I just didn’t respond, there would be no debate. But this debate, this OP, isn’t about Creation per se, it’s about people minding their own business. I started this thread for that reason. I am not discussing my specific beliefs about Creation here, or anywhere on this board.
Up to a point, sure. For a short amount of time. If the person were to want to argue with me about it. But if they just said, “Hey, I know it sounds crackpot to you, but it’s my life, unless you can prove I’m hurting society, it’s none of your business, really” I’d let it drop pretty quickly.
Frankly, I find the world full of people with irrational and odd beliefs - can’t save 'em all, can’t fix 'em all, can’t persuade 'em all. The ones who are minding their own business are the least of our problem, as far as I’m concerned. Plenty of zealous wackos out there to argue with, right?
Bruised egos, sure. I guess. But this is actually more about being pestered and annoyed by people who think that my “differentness” is something they need to fix, even after I tell them that it’s none of their business. And I just want to tell such people - go find some zealous fanatic who wants to put Creation in schools, and bug them instead.
Brian White said:
Have you read this thread – or others about this subject here? Because there are quite a few people on this message board who will probably be quite offended at your statements. You see, it is quite possible to believe that God created the universe without being a “creationist.” It is quite possible to believe in Jesus Christ and still accept evolution. There are a number of folks here who fall into this category. While you might like to make things so black and white by claiming evolutionists are godless anti-religionists who shudder at the thought of Christ, the facts show that you are just plain wrong.
Apparently Darwin, biology, physics, astronomy, the scientific method in general, etc.
Some have already been mentioned. I’d also add John Gribbin’s Almost Everyone’s Guide to Science.
There you go again, confusing science with religion.
And this is exactly the type of anti-science attitude that is so repugnant. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. Evolution belongs in public school. Creationism belongs in the home or church only. If you want to discuss further the whys and wherefores of this, we should start another thread, as it is a bit tangential to this one. You see, Yosemitebabe wanted to know why some people don’t like it when she says she is a creationist. Well, Brain, people like you are the main reason.
To:hardcore-
“This is exactly why I fight so hard to stamp out ignorance.It could negatively impact the quality of scientists we produce in the future,and I NEVER want that to happen”. Gee,Mr.hardcore,sounds like you’ve got a …well…religious zeal there. Just exactly what are you doing to stamp out such ignorance? I just wanted to let you know that all us po’ Christian folk really appreciate that you’ve appointed yourself to be the crusader against ignorance that you are!
[test post]
I did not imply otherwise, unless you consider the position of the statement in this thread.
Yosemitebabe,
first of all, let me again apologize, from one cat lover to another, for the vehemence of my post. This is a subject I feel strongly about. I am deeply scared of the religious right and their stupid politics. I view the effort to introduce “creation science” into public schools as a threat to American science. However I understand that you do not associate yourself with those people. You wish to have your own beliefs and to keep them private. This is of course your right.
However, I am astonished that a person of your intelligence and sensitivity would reject such a well founded theory as evolution. I wonder if this is not what some of the people you come in contact with are also experiencing. Perhaps you are misinterpreting their astonishment as anger. I can’t say for sure, since I am not in your shoes, and there are a lot of, well, jerks out there. But if someone I otherwise respected believed that, say, the earth was flat, or that aliens abduct people, I would try to talk them out of it, not out of hatred but out of genuine respect for their mind.
I still can’t see that this is on a par with vegetarianism or a love of classical music. I eat meat and listen to rock and roll, but I don’t really have a good reason for either. Musical tastes are purely subjective and if someone is being a jerk about yours, just tell 'em to take a hike. There are lots of good reasons for vegetarianism; from health, ethics, and environment. (In fact, I’m thinking of making the switch myself) Both sides have arguments and it would be wrong to call one side stupid.
However the facts and evidence are so overwhelmingly in favor of the theory of evolution that there really should be no debate and in fact wouldn’t be if people’s religious feelings weren’t threatened by it. (wrongly in my opinion)
Yosemitebabe, I urge you to go to your local library or bookstore and browse the biology section for a good popular intro to evolutionary biology. I also urge you to read Philip Kitcher’s Abusing Science (MIT 1982) for an account of the dirty tricks creationists play in attacking evolution and trying to dress up creationism as science. The book is slow going, but it is short and life changing, for me at least.
Again, this post is not made in anger to you. It is made in a spirit of respect to someone with a good heart who is just wrong about one issue. Your beliefs are your own, and I have no right to force you to change, but if you look again at the evidence I feel strongly that you will change your mind of your own free will.
Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat
yosemitebabe, I think you have a valid point; but paradoxically, it’s one that becomes less effective the more you repeat it. Your basic question seems to be “Isn’t it impolite for people to persist in offering criticism of personal beliefs to those who do not wish to discuss them?” This is a question that belongs in the domain not of the World’s Smartest Human but of the World’s Most Correct Human: Miss Manners (my second favorite columnist!).
And you’ll be pleased to hear that Miss Manners has elsewhere decreed that the answer to your question is Yes! Absolutely, it is impolite of people to persist in offering criticism of personal beliefs to those who do not wish to discuss them, whether they involve vegetarianism or ailurophilia or religious cosmogony. (We’re not talking about communication in courtrooms or classrooms or scientific journals now, we’re talking about the rules of polite society, such as you have the right to expect to encounter at, say, a dinner party.) You are quite justified in politely refusing to analyze your personal beliefs with such impolite people, and the WMCH even offers you a handy little formula to use in such situations: “Oh, it’s not something I ever discuss. Did you catch the game yesterday?” Courteous, low-key, and dismissive; repeat as often as necessary.
But you’ll notice, yosemitebabe, that in order to support a credible stand against unwillingly discussing your personal beliefs in public, you must refuse to discuss them! People who grab onto a controversial topic like a pit bull and keep trying to change your mind about it because you dropped a casual remark in passing at a dinner party are unbearably rude; people who post views disagreeing with those expressed in a thread on an SDMB message board called Great Debates are not. (Not rude by definition, that is; of course, some of the disagreements can be quite rude in themselves! :)) You’re justified in saying that your OP doesn’t invite discussion of the validity of creationism; okay then, what are you inviting discussion about? If you just want to say “Rude people who persist in giving me uninvited criticism about my private beliefs really bother me!”, I suggest it’s a better topic for MPSIMS or the Pit. If you want to debate the question “Under what circumstances, if any, are people justified in arguing about controversial topics with others who don’t want to argue with them, and why do they do so?”, then congratulations: you’ve inspired some very thought-provoking posts. But if you keep coming back to a thread in GD just to reiterate that you hold a controversial opinion that many people passionately object to but which you refuse to discuss, then I’m afraid that qualifies you as an attractive nuisance. If you want folks to leave you alone about something, you have to stop talking about it!
Kimstu
a Teeming Millionth and a Gentle Reader!
Larry Borgia: Well said!
PDmach: I wasn’t trying to be snide. I simply wanted to balance your quote with others by Einstein. I apologize if you felt I was attempting to do otherwise.
originally posted by Larry Borgia
Of course you do. The concept that “everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing” cannot be supported even by the most “creative” scientists. It is an indefensible position full of leaps of faith and suppositions. A position promulgated by anti-theism and a closed minded refusal to even acknowledge the posssibility of intelligent design.
::
It’s my understanding that creationism is a very specific set of beliefs (in the way that classical Darwinism is a very specific set of beliefs, I know “belief” isn’t the best word here) and it is one that I don’t share. And I understand that Yosemitebabe believes it but has more or less pledged not to act on it.
But if Yosemitebabe wants to believe it, vote for it, argue for it, and stand on a streetcorner wearing a sign around her neck to promote it, that is her right as an American. When did we decide that the cool folks among us get to form a consensus of correct beliefs that everyone must buy into, or shut up? When did we become afraid of people voting with their convictions, when their convictions didn’t agree with ours?
People who feel strongly about X always get nervous when someone else says Y. We have to have a certain amount of conflict and debate, though, because tyranny of the majority always gets the whole train off-track.
If somebody told me the sky was orange or the earth was flat, I’d be curious enough to ask why she said that. I wouldn’t assume she was an idiot. She might be talking about the way the eye discriminates between different wavelengths of light, or about multidimensional space. In other words, there might be something I didn’t know. How about that.