Is it morally wrong to dislike creationists and fundamentalists?

[MemeBuster]

Or maybe they understand that religions change when people change! Religions change, and have to change, or they stop existing. If Christianity can still be seen as relevant to life today (instead of trying to force life today to be inline with what Christianity used to be), it might be able to keep being a religion.

What is wrong with wanting one's religions to still be relevant?

Man-made things change and evolve.

The fact that religions evolve, suggests to me that religions are man-made.


MB.

 

[Latreia]

Man-made things change and evolve.

The fact that religions evolve, suggests to me that religions are man-made.


MB.

Does this mean that you do not believe evolution is scientific?

Perhaps you think that any kind of evolution is man-made?

What is your religion, how is it not man-made?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Man-made things change and evolve.

The fact that religions evolve, suggests to me that religions are man-made.

1. Lots of things (like, you know, all the species that exist or have existed) evolve without the "help" of humans.
2. Religions are "man made" in that without humans, there would not be any. Even if deities exist separate from humans, without humans (or a similarly intelligent organism) there would be nothing to worship those deities.
3. Why does it matter if religions are made by humans or not? Does that make it worse that people want their religion of choice to be helpful in today's society?

 

[MemeBuster]

Why does it matter if religions are made by humans or not?

No, but it is important that people realize their worldview is not from the omniscient creator of the Universe, but instead it is based on experiences of people who lived centuries ago and had a much more limited knowledge of the world.


MB.

 

[cantata]

No, but it is important that people realize their worldview is not from the omniscient creator of the Universe, but instead it is based on experiences of people who lived centuries ago and had a much more limited knowledge of the world.


MB.

Which is why the Christians with whom I feel an affinity do not take seriously the outdated teachings they find in Leviticus. They recognise in the Christ of the gospels a gentle, wise and loving teacher. Have you read Luke's gospel? It's hard to argue with Luke's ethics: love one another, and be kind to the poor and sick. This is what outlasts dogma: the moral and spiritual truths which continue to timelessly resonate with human beings even when the precise historicity of the texts, or the moral value of the finer points of Levitical law, comes into question.

 

[PeterMaclellan]

Disliking someone for their beliefs is bad.
Disliking someone for the way the practice/express those beliefs is fine.

 

[Latreia]

Disliking someone for their beliefs is bad.

Disliking someone for the way they practice/express those beliefs is fine.

Is this like saying "Chrstians are OK, but not when they pray or go to church."?

 

[cantata]

Is this like saying "Chrstians are OK, but not when they pray or go to church."?

If for some bizarre reason you have a problem with praying or going to church, then yes.

I believe the point was that you can't dislike someone for believing something, but you can dislike them for the actions which are caused by that belief if they're, y'know, bad actions.

Like if someone thinks gay people are living in sin, that's fine, as long as they don't try to prevent gay people from going about their everyday lives because of that belief.

 

[elijah115]

I often being a non-creationist was deluded since it means considering a statistical chance of < 10^-130 "probable". You'd have to delude yourself big time to think animate life could have evolved from an inanimate constituents without God, in my opinion.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I often being a non-creationist was deluded since it means considering a statistical chance of < 10^-130 "probable". You'd have to delude yourself big time to think animate life could have evolved from an inanimate constituents without God, in my opinion.

1. Even a small chance means there is a chance. There is a tiny chance that you will win the lottery, but people do win it.
2. I think you are confused about what this thread is about. *grin*

 

[elijah115]

not confused the chance of winning the lottery in the usa is 1 in 14 million. i.e. 10^7

The chance that the life existed as a result of chance is less than 10^120? Do you understand the significance of that probability?

According to NASA the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. 10^10 years old.

In order for a less 1 in 10^120 event to definitely occur, you would need 10^120 opportunities.

That's without getting onto the issue of a human being evolving for a mass of gas in space (an inanimate object).

NB I am not answering the topic. I read people talking about why some creationists and fundies annoy them, and I posted my point because I thought it was closeminded to expect some people to consider an infinitely unlikely possibility probable.

 

[WatersMoon110]

NB I am not answering the topic. I read people talking about why some creationists and fundies annoy them, and I posted my point because I thought it was closeminded to expect some people to consider an infinitely unlikely possibility probable.

If you aren't answering the topic, you might want to consider talking about this, well, elsewhere. *grin*

 

[stan1980]

The chance that the life existed as a result of chance is less than 10^120? Do you understand the significance of that probability?

This is the argument from improbability. Please take a moment to read this http://richarddawkins.net/article,126,Who-Owns-the-Argument-from-Improbability,Richard-Dawkins

and http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Argument_from_Improbability

According to NASA the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. 10^10 years old.

In order for a less 1 in 10^120 event to definitely occur, you would need 10^120 opportunities.

This argument is very flawed on so many levels. (I'm a bit busy at the moment but i'll try and come back later to show why, or i'm sure someone else will point out the flaws in the meantime)

 

[LittleNipper]

It's a prejudice of mine i admit, but i just don't like nor have any respect for creationists or fundamentalists. I think they are damaging for their very own religion, half of them seem to be unhinged, incite hate, and are maybe even dangerous.

So, is my prejudice wrong, or should i try and sympathise with them (which would be very hard)?

You should love everyone, but select your friends wisely.

 

[elijah115]

what are you going to dream up? infinite universes? My argument was dumbed down for sake of illustration. I used a 1 in 10^120 chance for the sake of covering the unrealistically optimistic non-creationist stance.

 

[Latreia]

It's a prejudice of mine i admit, but i just don't like nor have any respect for creationists or fundamentalists. I think they are damaging for their very own religion, half of them seem to be unhinged, incite hate, and are maybe even dangerous.

So, is my prejudice wrong, or should i try and sympathise with them (which would be very hard)?

Depends on whether you think it is OK for anyone who has a prejudice against reading your posts, or decides to feel a prejudice about you as a person, simply labelling you as a bigot or attracted to broadbrush critcisms that make you appear to be unhinged, incites hate, maybe even dangerous?

 

[Maren]

what are you going to dream up? infinite universes? My argument was dumbed down for sake of illustration. I used a 1 in 10^120 chance for the sake of covering the unrealistically optimistic non-creationist stance.

But this ignores the fact that in order to claim there is a creator involves even longer odds that some all-powerful, all-knowing creator came into being before the universe or anything else came into existence. The odds on that have to be at least 1 in 10^1000000.

 

[gengwall]

1. Even a small chance means there is a chance. There is a tiny chance that you will win the lottery, but people do win it.

Lol - paraphrasing Jim Carey's character in "Dumb and Dumber" will probably not win many arguments.

 

[gengwall]

The irony in this thread is that the premise is what is close-minded, or at least ignorant. You can't attach labels like "fundimentalist" or "creationist" to people and then proceed as if you are dealing with a limited number of personal characteristics. In reality, both fundimentalism and creationism cover broad spectrums of opinion, argument, as well as communication styles and techniques. It would be a little easier to answer the OP's question if it were posed as "is itwrong to hate those fundimentalists and creationists who..." and then fill in the blank with those particular traits and opinions that particularly tick you off.

 

[Maren]

The irony in this thread is that the premise is what is close-minded, or at least ignorant. You can't attach labels like "fundimentalist" or "creationist" to people and then proceed as if you are dealing with a limited number of personal characteristics. In reality, both fundimentalism and creationism cover broad spectrums of opinion, argument, as well as communication styles and techniques. It would be a little easier to answer the OP's question if it were posed as "is itwrong to hate those fundimentalists and creationists who..." and then fill in the blank with those particular traits and opinions that particularly tick you off.

Strange how I've never heard you make similar statements in every "liberals are evil", "atheists are evil", "pro-choicers are evil", or "gays are evil". In each of those cases the people are just as much individuals with broad spectrums of opinion, argument, etc. At least on this thread most do claim that do not hate all who go by that label and admit there are differences between Creationists and Fundamentalists -- unlike those other threads I mentioned.