Why creationists reject evolution

[Erock83]

You are treading on dangerous ground asking me to respect other peoples ideas if someone decides to kill in the name of god do you expect me to respect their idea i dont think so.

I agree in freedom of speech but i dont have to respect other peoples ideas.(but even freedom of specch has its limits like here in the uk you are not alowed to preach terrorism which is good)

Well I think a persons that is willing to kill in the name of God is poorly misguide but I would respect that person. Guns tend invoke respect. The UK does not allow you to talk about t’ism wow yeah that’s not authoritarian. Speech that promotes t’ism is not bad the act of t’ism is what is bad. Wanting to take action to change a government is not a bad thing in fact I would state that is a wonderful thing. The ideas of t’ism should be respected on the level and some people are willing to do almost anything, in God’s name or not to attract attention to there ideals. Why this is not a bad idea is because at the point where you respect the ideas that people want change, talk about them and consider them you, even if you reject them. This would be a very good thing because then you give them exactly what they wanted at least in some small part by considering their ideas instead of ignoring them.

One Love.

 

[Praxiteles]

You are right i never get involved in these debates but after watching dawkins tonight i am a bit worried about some of the preachers that are out there. Also the london bombing in july must have started something in me as well.

I agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, and I hope that his programme is aired here. However, I think he's a bit too confronational.

You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes.

 

[Praxiteles]

Well I think a persons that is willing to kill in the name of God is poorly misguide but I would respect that person. Guns tend invoke respect. The UK does not allow you to talk about t’ism wow yeah that’s not authoritarian. Speech that promotes t’ism is not bad the act of t’ism is what is bad. Wanting to take action to change a government is not a bad thing in fact I would state that is a wonderful thing. The ideas of t’ism should be respected on the level and some people are willing to do almost anything, in God’s name or not to attract attention to there ideals. Why this is not a bad idea is because at the point where you respect the ideas that people want change, talk about them and consider them you, even if you reject them. This would be a very good thing because then you give them exactly what they wanted at least in some small part by considering their ideas instead of ignoring them.

One Love.

I can't agree that incitement to violence isn't bad. I am of the opinion that it is very bad.

 

[Erock83]

I can't agree that incitement to violence isn't bad. I am of the opinion that it is very bad.

I don’t say violence is not bad. I don’t really like violence very much either. What I’m saying is that if we could respect people’s ideas more that people on the extreme of issues would be less likely to restore to violence to have there voices heard.

One Love.

 

[Praxiteles]

I don’t say violence is not bad.

I know.

I'm talking about incitement to violence, which in your previous post you said was not bad.

I don’t really like violence very much either. What I’m saying is that if we could respect people’s ideas more that people on the extreme of issues would be less likely to restore to violence to have there voices heard.

One Love.

Where would you draw the line on respecting someone's view? What, in your view, is beyond the pale when it comes to respect?

 

[nogodknowpeace]

Well I think a persons that is willing to kill in the name of God is poorly misguide but I would respect that person. Guns tend invoke respect. The UK does not allow you to talk about t’ism wow yeah that’s not authoritarian. Speech that promotes t’ism is not bad the act of t’ism is what is bad. Wanting to take action to change a government is not a bad thing in fact I would state that is a wonderful thing. The ideas of t’ism should be respected on the level and some people are willing to do almost anything, in God’s name or not to attract attention to there ideals. Why this is not a bad idea is because at the point where you respect the ideas that people want change, talk about them and consider them you, even if you reject them. This would be a very good thing because then you give them exactly what they wanted at least in some small part by considering their ideas instead of ignoring them.

One Love.

Sorry but i cant take you as serious anymore.

 

[nogodknowpeace]

I agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, and I hope that his programme is aired here. However, I think he's a bit too confronational.

You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes.

I hope you see the show it was called the root of all evil.
I dont believe in everything he says as well but i do see dawkins as a force for good.

 

[Nightson]

Speech that promotes t’ism is not bad the act of t’ism is what is bad.

FYI, this is speech like, "If you love God will will kill as many infidels as you can in holy fire" sorta speech.

 

[Praxiteles]

I was giving Dawkins some thought, and I think that he makes a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. He's looking at faith, but concentrating on the worst aspects of it and painting the remainder with the same brush.

If you think of fire as an analogy: fire can certainly be good, and is indeed very useful. Using Dawkins' argument here, though, he would look at the destructive nature of fire, such as bushfires, and conclude that all fire is bad.

I think that's a mistake, and weakens his points a bit.

Faith serves a function in human societies. I can recognise that, even though I am devoid of it myself. However, it is a matter of control. Out of control, faith, like fire, can be extremely destructive.

 

[nogodknowpeace]

paraxiteles you are a smart man.

 

[Erock83]

Sorry but i cant take you as serious anymore.

Why because you don’t understand that discourse is action? That is not my fault.

One Love

 

[Praxiteles]

paraxiteles you are a smart man.

Thank you!

Mostly people just call me a smarta*se.

 

[Erock83]

Where would you draw the line on respecting someone's view? What, in your view, is beyond the pale when it comes to respect?

At the point where people are willing to respect others views when I found a view to be morally repugnant I would have the ability to express that and have the other party respect my view. I understand that this by nature is not ever going to happen because people seem to be unable to respect, but that does not mean that we should not take the moral high ground. We should respect all ideas even if we disagree and reject them.

One Love.

 

[EvoDan]

...If you think of fire as an analogy: fire can certainly be good, and is indeed very useful. Using Dawkins' argument here, though, he would look at the destructive nature of fire, such as bushfires, and conclude that all fire is bad...

I'm not certain this anaolgy holds up very well: the only circumstances in which fire is beneficial is when an outside, secular intelligence is controlling it. When one simply takes it on faith that the fire is "good," and does not question or certify the entities in control, the end result is almost always destructive overall.

If one applies these caveats to your analogy, then we would need outside, secular forces in control of the churches, and we would need to examine the voting practices of every voter for secular-based rationale: none of which the fundies would stand for.

Let's face it: faith is the ultimate cop-out for accountability.

 

[Erock83]

Thank you!

Mostly people just call me a smarta*se.

Naw sarcasm is an intelligent from of humor. I to think that you have quite the intellectual capacity, as with most people on forums (and yes I’m guilty of this time to time) I see a lack of impacts to their arguments but usually your arguments have warrants and standards which is always good.

One Love

 

[Erock83]

Faith serves a function in human societies. I can recognise that, even though I am devoid of it myself. However, it is a matter of control. Out of control, faith, like fire, can be extremely destructive.

As I’ve said in other Dawkins related threads I would point out that his logic can be applied to lack of faith with out control, like fire, can also be very destructive.

One Love.

 

[Erock83]

Let's face it: faith is the ultimate cop-out for accountability.

Faith can also make a person more accountable for their actions and words as well.
One Love

 

[Praxiteles]

At the point where people are willing to respect others views when I found a view to be morally repugnant I would have the ability to express that and have the other party respect my view. I understand that this by nature is not ever going to happen because people seem to be unable to respect, but that does not mean that we should not take the moral high ground. We should respect all ideas even if we disagree and reject them.

One Love.

I'm sorry - I just can't make heads or tails of your post here; the first sentence in particular. Can you reword it?

 

[EvoDan]

Faith can also make a person more accountable for their actions and words as well...

Well, I'll entertain some examples if you'd care to provide some.

My initial thought, however, is 'Perhaps, but only in the short-term, and only when interacting person-to-person.' When people "of faith" start voting, in other words telling society as a whole how to behave, they are more likely to make decisions which are socially questionable.

 

[Praxiteles]

I'm not certain this anaolgy holds up very well: the only circumstances in which fire is beneficial is when an outside, secular intelligence is controlling it. When one simply takes it on faith that the fire is "good," and does not question or certify the entities in control, the end result is almost always destructive overall.

Precisely! And that's what I said. Faith under control is like fire under control. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean a secular authority, although that would be ideal.

If one applies these caveats to your analogy, then we would need outside, secular forces in control of the churches, and we would need to examine the voting practices of every voter for secular-based rationale: none of which the fundies would stand for.

Let's face it: faith is the ultimate cop-out for accountability.

Yes, probably so. But faith is a two edged sword. It also has a cohesive function in society.

I can't believe I'm arguing *for* faith. But I think Dawkins goes too far and too hard.