I dont know if this is the kind of information that will help.
I had a friend who converted to Charismatic Evangelical Christianity a few years after high school.
He was a great public speaker and debater in school so I did not find it unusual that he began giving lectures to his Christian group. he evn took some classes on effective teaching methods.
i went to see a few of these events just to see what sort of arguement he was putting forward.
He was not only speaking to adults, but also to children. This was the only exposure that these people had to pretty much any science.
One of the things that really surprised me is that every single person there believed every word he said without question. i think this is an important factor in christian education. For some reason, they will believe without question. In any science class, you will normally hear people ask questions because they may not understand or want more information. Not in this group. They did not question why something did or did not occur, they just believed.
I confronted him after a few visits because he was lying to these people about many fields of science. I was particularly shocked because I knew he was lying and I knew that he was aware he was lying. He knows some of the science but was diliberately misinterpreting or twisting the facts to suit his 'lesson'. We had discussed the science and both of us knew he was lying and that people would believe his lies.
He told me that it did not matter what he told them. He did not see it as lies. He 'knew' that the earth was 6000 years old and that evolution was false. He told me that as his views were the truth, it did not matter how he convinced others of it. I suggested that this was dishonest. He disagreed with me and said that as long as they came to the true faith, regardless of how this was achieved, he was being honest to the only one who mattered. That was god.
I do not doubt that this line of reasoning is common amongst evangelicals.
Is that so surprising? That's what religions are about; belief without questioning.
I was only talking about these specific groups and this one guy. There would have been about 50 people in each meeting. Mostly the same folks as far as i could remember. I do not attend these events as a habit. I only attended because I was curious. He asked me a fair few questions about science, evolution and biology. I was a first year biological scince major at the time. Not a particularly good source. I was curious to see wht he did with the information. We mostly went through some of my textbooks. The thing that really annoyed me ws that he understood the science and then misrepresented, ommited and lied his way through his 'lessons'. He was not lecturing on god or religion. He was lecturing on science. I was coming out of classes where everyone had questions. His audience never questioned anything. noone asked him to explin anything or ask for some evidence. It was very different to my lessons. I would disagree that all creationists and religiou people follow a belief without questioning approach. The religious people on this forum are often quite good thinkers. Many religious people I meet are thinkers but will follow their faith regardless of evidence. I do agree that people will choose the option that offers eternal life. That is a pretty good bonus prize. They also have the kicker that if you dont believe you burn in hell for eternity. Personally, I am still going for whats in the mystery box.
But what you write here suggests that your (former) friend is also trying very hard to deceive himself. Very interesting.
I dont really know what his personal motivations were. He became a more and more confusing man as time went on. He held down a normal job as a graphic designer and seemed perfectly normal and rational. But the guy I saw at the meetings was a different guy. I think he was well and truly decieved and happy for it. I dont think he saw it that way. I sort of lost contact with him for a few years before moving back to the old neighbourhood and meeting him again. From what I recall he had some pretty serious family and relationship problems during that time. Then he met a girl who went to a local church. It is quite possible that he leapt into their open arms happily and willingly because his life had gone to shit. Perhaps he found his purpose. He was not making any money. I suppose he was gaining a fair bit of statusand appreciation in his group. He received a lot of applause and handshakes, pats on the back etc when he was done.
I dont understand the mentality of feeling happy that you are doing gods work.
I get satisfaction from teaching my little girl different things (she is only 14 months so we have yet to delve into religion, if I can get her to stop using her own poo as a painting medium I will have taught her something good). But I would not get any satisfaction from lying to her.
It was a a smal story from personal experience relating to the teaching style and justification of one man. It could help to understand other teachers like him.
Unfortunately, we have people like hooah that demand that you know that you're wrong and feel that they owe it to the human race to edumacate you about these things.
this is not an uncommon thing. Throughout history, even today, people have been educating people, even by force. I am going to play the devils advocate. Sometimes it i the right thing to do. Do the people who are ignorant not have the right to know the truth. Some people want to hold very tightly to their beliefs but it is in their best interests to be told the truth. There rights need to be taken into account as well. Why allow someone to live their life in a manner that is unrequired, fearing god and following his rules, when it is known that this is doing nothing for them. If we allowed this to happen, in 100 years, wouldnt people ask us why we let them do it? Why we sat back and watched thousands of people live their life in fear and ignorance without doing anything to help them.
Rhetorical questions -
Do you think the early colonising powers should have put a stop to things like human sacrifice in cultures they found considering it wwas not helping them in the way they thought it was?
Do you think western nations should enter nations with their armies where human rights are being violated by groups because of their religious teachings?
Do you think we should force the catholic church to stop telling africans that condoms are a sin so they can avoid spreading the aids virus?
Do you believe that people who break the law because of their religious beliefs should be punished?
Criminals need re education all the time, thats why we send them to prison. I suppose they are not really ignorant of the law, they just dont care. Which is the case with a lot of the fundamentalist religious community.
These re examples where is could be considered that education by force could be considered a good thing.
It could be said that we do owe it to the species to make sure everyone is educated.
would it not be irresponsible to intentionally leave a group ignorant?
BEFORE YOU SMASH AWAY AT THE DISLIKE BUTTON - I am playing the devils advocate. The statement above were made in the interest of furthering the discussion. I think some of what Hooah and CS have said is correct.
I was replying to the comment itself, not to your original post.
I did not mean it to look like I was putting words on your mouth.
My bad, should have clipped the comment.
To Catholic Scientist,
Like we "helped" the Native Americans? What's wrong with just letting them have their culture and ignorance?
I have this discussion occasionally with some friends with regards to Australias colonisation. When the British arrived, the indigneous people were stone age people. It is too soon to really tell if they will benefit in the long run for their leap forward through time.
I wonder how people would view the British if they had seen the people, then chose to leave them as they were. Would the other nations of the world have done the same? What would have happened in WW2? Who would have protected them against other powers? Would the natural resources in Australia be left alone? These questions probably apply to the native Americans also.
As a hypothetical situation, resources are getting quite scarce. Lets say the Chinese decide that they want the resources in Australia. The people of Australia, being without any central government, any armed forces, any treaties and no knowledge of the value of their resources would certainly fare poorly.
If an advanced form of alien life came to Earth, and we could see that they had technology that could double our lifespan as well many other things, would you want them to give it too us?
I do know the Prime Directive. It is a good idea when applied to pre warp civilisations. I dont know how well it would work in real life.
Vomiting more random, poinless nonsense onto this forum.
1. Pls tell us the first recording of life form groupings by category?
Why does this matter? What does this get you? Would you like a gold star if you could prove that you favourite book was the first book to have some grouping of animals. Regardless if that grouping was non specific and has little relevance to the discussion. I have asked you for the evidence of your claim. I have asked for sources. Telling someone to prove you wrong does not support your arguement. Let me put this in very simple terms for you. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. See how that works. If you do want to discuss this, you will need to start your own thread. If you wont start you own thread, you will need to stop bringing it up in threads that are unrelated.
2. You call Creationists as ignorrant. Pls tell us when non-creationists will catch up in the Nobels prize listing with the ignorant creationists?
Seriously? Are you saying that all of the Jewish Nobel prize winners were actually Creationists? Are you aware that many are supporters of Evolutionary theory? Are you aware that the Jewish faith is one of the strongest religious supporters of the Theory of Evolution? Do you actually know the religious beliefs of all of the Nobel Prize winners? Please supply you data (including the source) that shows the Creationists and non Creationists. It would also be handy to know what sort of Creationism they are.
Do you really think that the 800 Nobel Prize winners is a good judgement of overall intelligence? Let me put it another way, Most Nobel prize winners are men, therefore women are more ignorant than men. Or how about this, most nobel prize winners are clean shaven, therefore people with beards and moustaches are ignorant. See how foolish your claim is? I doubt that you can support any claim that there is a positive link between creationism and intelligence, but to take Nobel Prize winners (they constitute 0.0000118% of the current population) as a group to judge overall intelligence is ridiculous.
3. Pls give an alternative to Creationism?
Are you really serious? I find it hard to believe that you are.
Check the title of the forum you are on. It will give you a hint to an alternative.
Why dont you start a thread with a few of your favourite claims.
You are obviously convinced that you have something to offer.
Why do you continue to throw random, unrelated, off topic statements into other threads when you can have one of your very own to 'educate' us all.
You have made it very clear that you think that you are more enlightened than many of us.
Yes, this is a phenomenon which exposes the widespread ignorance what an ancient text means and how it applies in today's generation. The shock surprise in asking what is meant by seed today is disgraceful - as if its open to multi-choices. Translate it into your own native language if your english comprehension is so poor!
Anyone who can violate the english language in the way you do (see example above) has no right to criticize other peoples literacy.
I notice a common line of thought in your posts. You seem to believe that it is everyone elses fault that they cannot understand your posts, that noone is smart enough to grasp what you are saying, that noone else seems to be able to see the importance of the things you hold so dear, that you are the only one who can correctly interpret scripture and that you are the only one who understands what science, creationism, reason and logic really are.
What do you think the chances are that you are the single person who understands all of these things and that every other poster here has been found wanting?
How confident are you that you are some sort of prodigy so far advanced in every form of science, every form of debate and all branches of philosophy and religion that noone here can even comprehend what you are saying?
Or maybe you are full of shit and supply arguments in a nonsensical manner.
Which one do you think is more likely?
(I mean this in the nicest possible way as a form of constructive criticism)
You continue to ignore even the most obvious problems with your ranting.
Problems that have been highlighted time and time again.
I will pick one statement from you post even at the risk that conversing with you may give you some impression that your statements are in any way valid -
It is specific, conditioning the difference to the most fundamental factors: water borne or air born are specific and stand out factors.
take these two animals - Mosquito, and penguin.
Where do they fit into your 'kinds'?
What about about land crabs and Japanese spider crabs? Are they different kinds?
What does airborne mean? Does it mean that butterflies, albatross, bats, flying fish and draco lizards are all the same kind?
What about water borne? There are species of crabs that live their whole liives on land, but spawn in the water. What about leatherback turtles, they lay their eggs on land but spend their lives in the water? How about the fact that many insects spend the majority of the life in the water, only leaving it in their adult life. Are penguins waterborne? What about seabirds like the albatross who spend most of their time on the water? What about polar bears? They spend most of their times on sea ice. Does this mean they are sea borne? Waterborne? Is there an ice borne?
I will add one other thing.
You forgot to say creationsts are not ignorant
Here are the common definitions of ignorant.
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
The vast majority of creationists are ignorant to varying degrees of the Theory of Evolution. You can easy ascertain this from the claims the creationist websites and creationists themselves make. Simple errors like the 2nd law argument, the why are there still monkeys arguements and the plain old 'I dont need to read anything about Evolution because i know its wrong'.
You continue to very effectively make yourself look like an idiot.
I will supply the most likely response you will get from IamJoseph re the bible being the first recording comment.
He will tell you that cave paintings are not a book. He will tell you that he means an alphabetical book. Then he will tell you that it has to be a book with pages. Then he will tell you they have to be paper pages.
He will continue to more the goal posts until you give up in frustration.
Then he will claim he has won. Won at what exactly no one will ever know.
He will tell you that you have not countered his arguement (even if you have) and refuse to acknowledge any problems with his language and logic. He will ignore comments that his position is irrelevant, pointless, unrelated to the topic, has not been supported by any evidence, is not stated clear enough to know exactly what he is talking about or has not actually answered any comment or question that you put forward.