WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

SERIOUSLY?????????

Ignorant


1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.

Yes, seriously. If ignorance is something I believe is a problem, I will speak of that ... but just what the 'ell is "ignorant stubbornness"?!

How can a characteristic -- the characteristic itself, and especially stubbornness -- ever be "ignorant"?

People can be ignorant and that ignorance can lead to fear, but stubbornness can be just as possible among the well-informed.

Wow.

I have a slightly larger spread than yours between my Aspie <------------> NT scores!

Bear in mind that the aspie mentality is often such that we can nitpick things to death, especially things that form our special interests, and we are generally less concerned for what others find offensive. Just so everyone knows, my feelings are not hurt in the least by what bicycling guitarist said, nor was it ever my intention to offend him. I think maybe he has made too many assumptions about me, and I find his crusade-like approach to making a case for macroevolution perplexing. But it would be pointless to be offended by it. Bicycling's errors have to do with logical conflicts with someone (me) who is less concerned or impressed by science. It's not that I really have any doubts as to the value or efficacy of science. I use it every day, inasmuch as additive, subtractive, frequency modulation, and sampling involve science in my particular area of art. I am naturally more predisposed to subjective exploration. Sounds that appeal to me intellectually make most NTs' ears bleed. But I also have an extensive knowledge of how those sounds originate and my goal is to transform my inner thoughts and imaginings into patterns of sound that best communicate what I'm thinking/feeling. It's not all of science I dispute. I merely see that the logic of getting from point A to point B on certain specific issues is lacking, and I have no impediment in pointing that out. No one witnessed creation, so in that sense no one, neither creationists nor evolutionists can say they "know" what happened beyond ANY reasonable doubt. I have a difficult time agreeing with anything that parades itself as an absolute "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, it can be no other way." On the other hand, I'm willing to believe multiple accounts of events that were seen as they happened. I take no issue whatsoever with believing such testimony in the New Testament of the Bible, which in turn provides clues that the Tanakh is reliable. This means I have no problems with evolution as it is an ongoing process. I also have no problems at all believing court records are reliable. I should also point out that there are differences between different types of evidence. Science relies on one type of evidence and proof, generally assuming that things are not there if they are not detected. The logic is basically: Science cannot detect God, therefore, God does not exist. I won't go into it, but there are some obvious reasons why that logic isn't ALWAYS sound. Courtroom evidence is such that it CANNOT be tested scientifically to show that crimes did/did not occur. It is, for instance, impossible to literally bring a person back to life, reconstruct the crime scene, and allow the killer to murder his victim AGAIN to prove that he did it. Eyewitness accounts are necessary in order to bring juries to the scene of the crime. Various forms of historical evidence exist, but once again they prove difficult when held up to the same kinds of procedures as scientific inquiry (letters written during the Civil War, for instance, collectively show the attitudes shared during that time of conflict but do not really make up any "scientific" body of evidence.

I would have replied earlier, but Inuyasha beat me to it. I think Inuyasha's response summed up some genuinely good concerns over macroevolution, but the problem might have been Inuyasha's heavy-handed style. Up to that point, I'd have taken Bicycling at his word. Bicycling responded with an equally heavy-handed rebuttal if not more so. Whether he MEANT to or not, Bicycling tipped his hand and really came across more as an anti-Christian, pro-evolution/pro-science crusader. From that point forward, Bicycling lost any support I might have actually backed him up on. For my part in the discussion, the best thing I can do now is stay out of it. My feelings aren't hurt, nor are my emotions disturbed by it one bit. But there's little left that I feel I can really take seriously! I think what might have helped was if Inuyasha hadn't taken this so much as an all-out assault (which at that time it wasn't) and if Bicycling could have found a way to ease up or just ignore it.

The emotive attributes of language are lost in the written meaning, and that's really the point I want to make here. You simply cannot allow yourself to get so easily offended when quite often that is NOT the intention.

Well I feel that Christans would the normal "Stereo Typical" type religion around here, but I guess lately it seems to annoy others, well I never offend anyone's religion, for what they are, I mean I myself am trying to learn an Asian religion if you guys don't decide to flame me, I mean each Aspie or Autistic person has his own reason to like a different religion and such, well the religion is Shinto, Japanese Shinto to be a matter of fact, and well I say this is due to reason that I want to learn something that has more peace, more with Nature, and well a bit more Open Minded, I know I am going to get critisized for this, but the thing is, it seems with the world likely to have another world war, it seems religion is the mainb target outside of Asia, and well since they are not involved with such wars, I figure I go with something that would well "Stereo Typical", no offense guys.

Perhaps I should have said stubborn ignorance. (and I gave you your point. I agreed with you that perhaps fear is a bigger motivator.*ding! Point for Lee*)

Some people seem to take solace in their ignorance and stubbornly refuse to give any real consideration to concepts outside of their viewpoint. I did not mean "ignorance" as any sort of lack of intelligence. I meant it, pertaining to this conversation, as it is defined,ie. lacking knowledge of information as to a particular subject or fact. Which in itself is not a horrible thing. There are lots of things that I am lacking knowledge on, as with everyone.

Frankly, I tend to trust science. Yes, science has been proven wrong. Information, ideas, and technologies change, improve, and new discoveries are made. But, in general, I still place a lot of faith in the sciences. A friend and I were "debating" his religion's view that the earth is only 6,000 years old. To me, this idea is fairly impossible. (I use fairly to acknowledge that I am not all-knowing, and could very well be wrong) I believe in evolution, I can see that those changes would have taken much longer than 6,000 years, I can look at things like topography, tectonics, and the effects of erosion and such and feel confident that to achieve the effects I see today the process had to have taken more than 6,000 years. However, in my argument, I used carbon dating as my supporting evidence.. When he countered that carbon dating was a hoax, I realized I didn't know enough about it to support my theory at all. I had accepted what science said as truth, but was, in fact, ignorant to how the whole process worked. I immediately gave up the argument and went and educated myself on the science of it. And yes, I felt completely ashamed of my blind acceptance of a subject I knew very little of.

The difference is that I look to fill in the blanks when I realize I'm lacking information. If someone quotes a scripture I'm not familiar with, or debates the meaning I get from a particular scripture, I pull out a Bible, find it, and skip back a little further to make sure I'm getting the context of the scripture... If I'm still uncertain, I pull out a different Bible to see if the slight wording variation will help me see it in the new light it's been presented to me in.
I find that some people stubbornly cling to their misinformation and burrow into their ideologies, ready to hold the fort at all costs.. I'm not sure if this is fear as Lee pointed out it could be..... fear of change, fear of having to adapt core philosophies, or if it's just pure stubbornness.. and an inability to appear as though they're giving way. Perhaps a combination of the two?

My original statement in this particular exchange was saying that I thought TheBicyclingGuitarist had made a real point (though he could have been nicer), in that from what Inuyasha had posted, he didn't exactly seem to have his facts quite straight. I then tried to objectively show the the situation (as I see it) from both sides. I was not trying to offend, or point fingers (hence the ambiguous title "Bible-believers" and "you's".... but no, I did not mean you, leejosepho, You, specifically, have never told me, nor implied, that I was flat out wrong.. You have never tried to incorrectly assume that you know how I think and/or believe. And, in general, I find you to be fairly open minded. Perhaps even pretty darn open minded.

I didn't mean for the "point" thing to sound snotty.. as it kind of did to me as I read it back.... I really meant it as giving you the credit for making a valid point...

Ah! I had not thought of that, but yes, nobody could rightly call that a direct slam. One's pondering of "stubborn ignorance" (as opposed to "ignorant stubbornness") sends one's mind in a much different direction.


Yes. I used to think "ignorance is bliss" ... but then someone said, "Yes, maybe, but it is painful" ... and then some knowledge of actually being "willingly deceived" came into the picture ...

... and yet we do still need to balance all of that by also considering matters of fear.


Same here, but most definitely while still watching out for people who might do so "religiously"!


There is an example of you and I and TallyMan (and still others, of course!) sharing at least a modicum of humility! I can still hear Carl Sagan with his unique way of say "billions and billions of light-years ago ...", and I can accept there just really might be some truth there to keep in mind while reading the book of Genesis.


As irrational as this might seem, I only "hold out" on the matter of man ultimately coming into the picture (in whatever way) as a matter of specific intent.


I have just now realized you were responding to someone else for a bit -- -- but I think many factors can be at play there.


I now better-understand a little more about you, and I thank you for your candor! Overall, I believe you and I think quite-alike.

Wow and this from the person who happily and unreservedly states that what you believe is ignorant and self-deluded. You must have taken the Christian values of forgiveness and turning the other cheek to the next level entirely or your definition of personal hero is rather different to mine.
I don't know whether to applaud you or shake my head in pity.

I am very well aware of TallyMan's views and opinions along that kind of line, but please carefully consider his Or do they? just above. TallyMan likely has his own known-or-unknown reasons -- I will say no more there -- for believing and/or feeling as he does, and yet he and I have never -- not even once -- had a cross, disrespectful or inconsiderate word pass between us.


Again: TallyMan has never committed even the slightest offense against me. So, there is simply nothing needed from the Department of Forgiveness and no need of any cheek being turned.


You might notice I had only said "At least for today" ... and then neither does TallyMan know what even I might do yet tomorrow.


At least for the remainder of this particular day, I would suggest doing neither.

Deluded and diluted topic

We are all a little of both.

WP is not anti-Christian, just not in favour of it. In the marketplace of ideas, it is another idea, taking up web room, ready to be peddled, like all the other ideas floating around in Aspie cyberspace, going lightly up, like in dy-no-mite.

Lots of fun.

Fear of eternal damnation is a pretty powerful motivator. Ignorance plays a part too though. Most people who argue against evolution do so not because they really know anything about it, but because they have been badly misinformed about it by sources they trust. The main culprits are creationist books and web sites that, as I said before yet bears repeating, do not accurately describe what evolution says. Such sources present a cartoon caricature of evolution (only a theory, what use is half an eye, no transitional fossils, show me a cat-dog) that is grossly inaccurate. Such sources also are notorious for quote mine (taking quotations out of context to imply the author means something different than what he actually said when read in context, gee, that sounds a lot like the complaints some Bible people have about taking lines from Scripture out of context, doesn't it?).

I have commented many times in replies to Creationist letters and editorials on newspaper web sites that it is my opinion that most of those who deny the fact of evolution have the best of intentions. They mean well but they have been LIED to by sources they trust. I do not, consider myself anti-Christian as AngelRho accuses, not even anti-fundamentalist Christian. I would have no objection at all to whatever anyone wants to believe as long as they don't hurt anyone else or repeatedly try to shove it in my face after I politely say "no thank you." Dumbing down other people's children by legislated ignorance is harmful to the children, to our country and to humanity and the planet.

I would have more respect for the fundamentalist interpretation if those who follow it admitted to the evidence (for evolution and the age of the earth) but said they chose not to accept it or believe it for spiritual reasons. What offends me is LYING about what evidence exists, either ignoring or distorting any evidence they do admit to. IF one is going to take the fundamentalist approach to Scripture, then by all means do so, but at least be consistent. There is reason to believe that the people who wrote the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, believed in a flat-earth cosmology. Why aren't people lobbying their school boards to give equal time to the "flat earth theory." It's just as ridiculous as what is going on with evolution.

A long time ago it was also thought, by the biggest Christian denomination at the time, that the sun goes around the earth. Finally the weight of evidence forced that church to admit it had been wrong. That is what will eventually happen with those denominations that choose to deny the fact of evolution. Either that, or they will fade into obscurity as another failed crackpot cult. I don't consider this hate speech by the way. It's more like saying "wake up." It has even been noted by many people including Wikipedia that there is at least as much evidence man shares common ancestry with apes as there is for a heliocentric solar system.

And if those who say, oh but the flat earth in the Bible is just poetry, or a metaphor, then why for God's sake can't they take the same approach with Genesis? As I understand it, for most of Biblical history Genesis was not taken literally. It was understood to be an allegory, the main message being that God created us and loves us. Oh I know, some will say if it is not literal history, then all of Christianity falls. No fall means no need for salvation. It puts Jesus out of a job. On the other hand, MOST Christian denominations either have no problem accepting the fact of evolution or say whether or not it happened does not conflict with their faith. Most Christians worldwide, even if they don't know it, belong to churches that have no problem accepting the fact of evolution. A small but very vocal minority of Biblical literalists think otherwise. And again, I have no objections to what they believe, but if they want it to be in science class rooms then they need to find some evidence to support their view.

p.s.: So far, you will not find any such evidence on creationist web sites, only distortions and lies. Notice I said "So far." If such evidence is found, and proven to be authentic and not a forgery like the Paluxy footprints, I will be amazed but will have to accept that our current understanding of science is flawed.

I agree completely, but then even many of those "sources" truly do believe they actually are correct and right -- no intentional deception -- and then the "party-line dogma" ends up being circumstantially and/or situationally required for holding "member in good standing" status within the only allegedly-real escape pod anywhere on earth.

In all sincerity: Breaking free of all of that was, at least for me, even more impossible on my own than was the matter of living without drinking.


I would say such sources have conveyed lies, but not necessarily actually lied themselves since even they "know not what they do" ...

... and I think there is where some more-careful wording here could be much more effective overall.


That is where many people could learn much from the "LDS Public Relations Department". LDS missionaries simply introduce themselves -- as if we did not already know, eh?! -- and then say why they have come to your door ... and then, if asked, they respectfully add you to their no-call list.


Now that I believe I know more of the actual truth of the matter, I would never again ever have any respect for that kind of interpretation at all ... but yes, I can still have respect for those deceived and deluded people who yet grasp-and-hold-it ever so tightly.


Because they just do not understand my two-dimensional Aspie world?!

I wouldn't necessarily call them "deceived and deluded." It is my opinion that the fundamentalist approach may be the only way that works for some people. If that is the way they think, and that is the only way they can receive the Gospel, so be it. However, because they have that way of thinking, they think it HAS to be that way for everyone. But not everyone thinks the same way. People have different abilities, talents, interests, and may be starting from different levels of awareness to spiritual matters. Fundamentalism isn't just a problem for Christianity. Worldwide, fundamentalist interpretations of various religions cause much unrest because such interpretations tend to be dogmatic, inflexible and intolerant of other viewpoints.

It could be that spiritual teachers sometimes give different, seemingly conflicting, lessons to different people that address those people at the level they can understand. I found that in the teachings of the Hindu saint Ramana Maharshi. That is also the opinion of some Mahayana Buddhists, who say that even though the Theravada texts are the oldest documented written records of the teachings of the Buddha, the Mahayana teachings were the ones given to his innermost disciples. In other words, the first teachings taught were the last to be written down, and that is quite possible when one is talking about an oral tradition.

In Christianity, Alan Watts proposed that the three synoptic Gospels may have been more for the general public, while the more mystical theology of the Gospel of John was for the inner circle of Jesus's followers who were more receptive to it. Besides the mysticism, Alan Watts pointed out that the knowledge of the Jewish calendar and the topography of Jerusalem was more accurate in John than in the other three books.

Within your context, I agree, and maybe even a bit beyond that particular point (as I perceive it) ... and then I must still admit to having some issues of my own to yet be worked out.


I might not get this worded very well, yet I try ...

Any two people might be viewing the elephant from different vantage points -- you from the front and I from the back, for example -- and then I believe it is crucial for "you and I", so to speak, to then "compare and combine notes" and so on for the purpose of attaining but a single, comprehensive "viewpoint" (opinion or conclusion), overall. To ever get to such a place of "single-mindedness" will require each of us being willing to somewhat "trust" the other to come back from our actual/individual points of viewing with an accurate description or report of actual facts actually observed ...

... and then we can spend the remainders of our lives together, if we wish, trying to figure out just exactly "What the 'ell?!" we (as one mankind) actually did see!


,

@leejosepho: Problems result though when the believers in one vantage point insist theirs is the only possibly correct one. A major difference from the elephant example compared to the controversy about creationism is that evolution has tons of evidence supporting it (from many different "vantage points", i.e., different branches of science and different types of data) and none falsifying it. Creationism has no scientific evidence supporting it (only a particular way of interpreting Scripture) and tons falsifying it. To me, it seems rather obvious that anyone familiar with the evidence can only come to the conclusion that either evolution is true, or God is a malicious prankster trying to deceive us, or there is no God and the Bible is false. Millions of Christians have come to terms with the fact of evolution and continue being Christians, just as millions of Christians finally accepted that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa as their Church used to insist.

The following is a famous nineteenth-century poem based on much older stories from India and elsewhere. It may be that differing religions are different the way the elephant is described in this poem. I am pretty sure this poem is in the public domain and I am not infringing anyone's copyright by posting it here.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The First approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
“Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall.”

The Second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, “Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear.”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake.”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!