Open Letter to Dr. Shades

[Markk]

Because there is little use in talking about science with a creationist or fundamentalist. A creationist conception of science has little to do with accepted, mainstream scientific interpretation or consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?

I would totally disagree. I could say the same thing that there is little use discussing a Creator with an evolutionist. Your assertion implies you are 100% correct and that mankinds existence is somehow settled.

There are many different views in regards to creation by a creationist, just as there are multiple theories on evolution, and the science of evolution/s has its holes that a evolutionist can't really logically or scientifically explain away. Science is discussed, or more correctly questioned...which many evolutionists don't like...but I suppose that is why it is a debate.

But in regards to your post bringing this into the mix, I doubt that it was your intent in that you were the one denying the science, not me...and your stating "damn, you're a creationist" would imply I was the one ignoring science, when in fact I was the one injecting it into my assertion that all mankind are hypocrites.

Ironically your response shows hypocrisy...in one breath you imply becasue I am a creationist I somehow deny science and it is fruitless to discuss science with a creationist...yet when I inject science into the conversation...you first refuse to dig in, then deny it is a science, then imply I somehow ignore science.

In other words Morley...you have a line in your mindset or ideology that accepts science over "opinion," yet when I injected science into the conversation as a argument that we are all hypocrites by nature, you had to make a "moral" decision that crossed your line. I don't mean this as being either good or bad, but as an example of our human nature.

And I will add, the more you get to know a person, really know them, the more you see it. Also, the more one opens their mouths, and give their opinions, the more we see it...e.g. politicians, preachers, teachers, parents, partners, bosses, and friends.

[Markk]

I read your posts and understand what you’re saying. However, the articles cited nowhere suggest that we’re “hypocrites by nature.”

Yes they do, one article even stated hypocrisy is a 'evolutionary trait.'

We teach our children not lie, not to steal, and not to be hypocrites...it is a learned behavior to not do these things. There is a lot of truth in the Biblical teaching that man can't recognize his shortcomings unless there is a law or moral benchmark. Without a benchmark of what is "good or bad," we don't know what is "good or bad." But again we teach our children their moral values, based on our moral benchmarks, and that forms the lines they draw in life, and it is a battle within ourselves managing the lines we draw. And as we grow and learn it challenges those lines, and we often have to cross those lines in hypocrisy. And generally, that is what was written in the articles about the moral lines we draw, at least that is what I get out of much of what is written on the subject.

[Morley]

I read your posts and understand what you’re saying. However, the articles cited nowhere suggest that we’re “hypocrites by nature.”

Yes they do, one article even stated hypocrisy is a 'evolutionary trait.'

So is pale skin. We're not all pink skinned by nature.

[Morley]

I would totally disagree. I could say the same thing that there is little use discussing a Creator with an evolutionist.

I'd change that a bit. I would agree that there's little use discussing Creationism with an evolutionist.

[Markk]

So is pale skin. We're not all pink skinned by nature.

We all have skin by nature, and we all are all hypocritical by nature...even if there are variables in both our skin color and our hypocrisies.

The science I linked, whether you agree with or not, states otherwise, that it is a evolutionary trait.

If we are not hypocrites by nature, then why and how are we all hypocrites...do you believe it is a learned behavior?

[Markk]

I would totally disagree. I could say the same thing that there is little use discussing a Creator with an evolutionist.

I'd change that a bit. I would agree that there's little use discussing Creationism with an evolutionist.

Okay, either way works for me in describing the hypocrisy.

[Morley]

The science I linked, whether you agree with or not, states otherwise, that it is a evolutionary trait.

Skin is not a trait.

Markk, the term trait, when used regarding evolution, usually implies some feature that's not present in the whole of the species.


edited to diminish snark and magnify accuracy. Yes, it took me 3 times. Sigh.

[Morley]

I'm hopefully going to give you the type of answer that you aren't going to get from Markk. Like ever.

No. I wouldn't agree. What you seem to be missing here is that while creationists might observe and accept scientific method, they simply compartmentalize their religious belief and keep it separate and apart from science.

Some mostly do. I agree.

When you use the word creationist to label a group of people, I think you're oversimplying their belief in order to make a point for the sake of engaging in slam dunk argument and I tend to think that's an error.

I think you are using the term creationist to describe people who believe in a 6,000 year Earth and a literal wooden view of the Genesis account(s). There are two creation accounts in Genesis and if memory serves (I haven't looked it over in years) the two accounts are written to draw out different aspects of creation.

Indeed.

Am I a creationist? I am in the sense that I believe that a supernatural force or entity created the Earth/Universe configuration? Yes, I do. Whether or not that supernatural force involves the singularity/Big Bang explanations or other and newer theories regarding natural occurrences and THAT is the supernatural force or there is an actual supernatural being involved I can't fully say.

What do I think about the overall Genesis account? I think the Genesis account of creation is ancient tribal lore. That is to say, I think it's an expression of the ancients understanding of how the Earth/Universe came into being just like I think the Flood account comes from the same understanding.

Do I think the Earth was created in 6 literal days? I have no idea. Do I think the ancients understood what thousands or millions or billions of years were? No. I tend to think they used the sun/moon day/night cycle they were familiar with to explain the timing of the creation of the Earth/Universe.

It wasn’t created in six days, six thousand years ago. To believe this one has to disregard almost every discipline in science. Not only must biology be wrong, so must geology. And chemistry. And physics. And astronomy. And paleontology. The humanities and arts are distained, too, because they can’t be correct with a 6,000 year-old earth. History and archeology have to be rewritten in ways that aren’t rational.

Science deniers such as Creationists often brush aside the science on climate change, vaccinations, sexuality and race. This has enormous public policy implications.

The selective reading of science that Creationists have to perform creates conditions whereby many think that any science can be read for any outcome one desires. Social Science research is one of the most frequent casualties. Psychology and sociology are repeatedly misinterpreted to fit an agenda. (See for example, views on gay rights or sexulaity.) It happens all the time on this board. A few months ago, in a discussion of gun violence, Markk dismissed the research correlating gun deaths with lax gun laws, saying that you can find a study that proves anything you want.

And yes, I know not all Evangelicals believe the same. One of my oldest and closest friends is an Evangelical who embraces science. By and large, however, Creationists do not.

So, no. I don't think it's a waste of time to have a conversation about science with a creationist. While I myself leave room open to consider that the Genesis account may indeed be true, I don't spend time dwelling on it and it doesn't cancel out my respect for science. I can't tell you how the Universe was created but I can sure enough pick a certain medication (for example) that has a black box cancer warning on the label for a cancer side effect and explain to you why, if you are considering using that medication, it doesn't matter at all because I have studied the clinical trials and outcomes and understand why/how the cancer warning came about, and how the medication works and in what cases a person should consider using it.

Excellent.

We all use and appreciate science and technology. I am certain that Markk uses both in his work and personal life like the rest of us do. If he believes in a literal 6 day creation and a 6k old Earth, that's because he separates his religious thinking from his thinking about science in daily life.
The Bible wasn't written to explain or teach science. Let's not forget that in our discussion.

I kind of disagree. That we appreciate the some of the results of science doesn’t mean we appreciate or understand the science, itself.

I agree that the Bible wasn't written to explain or teach science. It’s also not without error. I wish people would stop thinking that it might have been either.

[Morley]

If we are not hypocrites by nature, then why and how are we all hypocrites...do you believe it is a learned behavior?

You're kidding, right? Why are you asking me to explain something I don't believe? I have loudly and often said here that I don't believe that we are all hypocrites.

[Morley]

just as there are multiple theories on evolution, and the science of evolution/s has its holes that a evolutionist can't really logically or scientifically explain away. Science is discussed, or more correctly questioned...which many evolutionists don't like...but I suppose that is why it is a debate.

Spoken like a true Creationist.

[cwald]

This might be one of the more stupid threads I've read on this forum. I'm worse off for having followed the ridiculous comments and deplorable accusations being thrown out there. Thanks for nothing. My opinion of some folks who claim the moral high ground because of their Christianity has taken a huge hit.

[Morley]

This might be one of the more stupid threads I've read on this forum. I'm worse off for having followed the ridiculous comments and deplorable accusations being thrown out there. Thanks for nothing. My opinion of some folks who claim the moral high ground because of their Christianity has taken a huge hit.

Ha! My belated apologies to all who have sojourned here.

[Markk]

Many years back two human bodies were found in the logs and branches in a curve of a favorite fishing stretch of mine in a local trout stream. They were a young guy and gal the murder of whom went unsolved for years. It left a dark and nasty feeling in me disinclining me to fish that stretch of stream for years. Is that hate? It was certainly focused upon the human who did the murder not the innocent stream.

Years later a serial killer was arrested and it was found that his killing had started with the young couple found in that trout stream. He has been in jail for years now, though now perhaps deceased. I do not remember his name or which location had him locked up. Is my forgetting hate or something else? If I say I do not hate him am I telling the truth?

Do I have any right to not hate him?

Hey HB,

I just read this...

Yes you have a right, I think we should all hate him, you can also forgive him which is a different animal, but you should never stop hating what he did..."a passionate dislike". I believe I have a right to hate Mormonism, child molesters, anti-semites, and alike. The question is would you be hypocritical to hate one serial killer, and yet accept a simple murderer (or alike)...and then try to play down and justify the latter as being a lesser "acceptable" hate.

In context with my OP, and my discussion with Kish and others, the question was why is hatred against Jews and Smokey called out, when hatred against Mormons and Christians is more or less accepted here without objection? The evidence is that today, Christians, and even Muslims, are maybe the most persecuted peoples on the planet.

Which, begs the question of whether or not we are all hypocrites.

[Markk]

You're kidding, right? Why are you asking me to explain something I don't believe? I have loudly and often said here that I don't believe that we are all hypocrites.

Morley wrote..."I'm not saying we're not all hypocrites some of the time. Of course we are. I've never maintained that. I'm saying I am not (and others here probably are not) hypocrites for participating on this board."
viewtopic.php?p=1211642#p1211642

Here is my question again...

Mark wrote "If we are not hypocrites by nature, then why and how are we all hypocrites...do you believe it is a learned behavior?"

My question stands...is it a learned behavior? I think we would also have to add things like lying, pride, lust and stealing to this mix. The science of moral hypocrisy is out there despite you not wanting to admit it.

Personally I try to learn and stop these kinds of "attributes". My parents ( teachers, coaches, faith...etc) certainly did not teach me these things, in fact they corrected me and taught me they were wrong.

You have a choice to make here...given what you wrote above and the line you have drawn (we are not hypocrites by nature). You either have to accept that we are indeed hypocrites by nature...or...assert that hypocrisy (lying, cheating, pride...etc) is a learned behavior, which I believe would be a tough sell.

Despite what others say here, this is a fair and honest conversation that deserves...well, a conversation. Looking at ourselves critically is not really such a bad thing, but IMO healthy, and I think we can grown by understanding and managing, so to speak, our negative attributes.

[Markk]

Spoken like a true Creationist.

And like wise from a evolutionist.

maybe the best and most honest answer to the C vs. E is ..."they are both right for what they teach, yet both wrong for what they deny"....Markk 3:16

[Morley]

You're kidding, right? Why are you asking me to explain something I don't believe? I have loudly and often said here that I don't believe that we are all hypocrites.

Morley wrote..."I'm not saying we're not all hypocrites some of the time. Of course we are. I've never maintained that. I'm saying I am not (and others here probably are not) hypocrites for participating on this board."
viewtopic.php?p=1211642#p1211642

Here is my question again...

Mark wrote "If we are not hypocrites by nature, then why and how are we all hypocrites...do you believe it is a learned behavior?"

My question stands...is it a learned behavior? I think we would also have to add things like lying, pride, lust and stealing to this mix. The science of moral hypocrisy is out there despite you not wanting to admit it.

Personally I try to learn and stop these kinds of "attributes". My parents ( teachers, coaches, faith...etc) certainly did not teach me these things, in fact they corrected me and taught me they were wrong.

You have a choice to make here...given what you wrote above and the line you have drawn (we are not hypocrites by nature). You either have to accept that we are indeed hypocrites by nature...or...assert that hypocrisy (lying, cheating, pride...etc) is a learned behavior, which I believe would be a tough sell.

Despite what others say here, this is a fair and honest conversation that deserves...well, a conversation. Looking at ourselves critically is not really such a bad thing, but IMO healthy, and I think we can grown by understanding and managing, so to speak, our negative attributes.

Some of the articles you're using aren't science. Others you're using don't say what you think they do. I don't believe I said that we're not all hypocrites by nature. I said that the science you quote does not say that we are all hypocrites by nature. There's a difference.

If you say the study says the tree is 100 years old and I say the study doesn't say that, I'm not making any judgement about the age of the tree. I'm saying you're misrepresenting what the piece you're referencing says.

And when I say "I'm not saying we're not all hypocrites some of the time. Of course we are." that doesn't mean I think we all can be labeled as hypocrites. Because someone has been dishonest some time in their life doesn't make them a dishonest person.

I don't know whether hypocritical behavior is nature or nurture. It's not something that concerns me.

I do see where you're coming from--from a religious perspective. If we are all born in sin then we must also be born hypocrites. Am I representing that correctly? As you've probably already concluded, it's not a belief I share.

[Lemmie]

This might be one of the more stupid threads I've read on this forum. I'm worse off for having followed the ridiculous comments and deplorable accusations being thrown out there. Thanks for nothing. My opinion of some folks who claim the moral high ground because of their Christianity has taken a huge hit.

Ha! My belated apologies to all who have sojourned here.

No apology needed, you’ve done a great job! It’s not easy having a discussion with someone who incorrectly and repeatedly tells others what they think, feel, and are motivated by, in spite of people posting, over and over and OVER, what they think, feel, and are motivated by. What kind of a discussion is that?

Additionally, the repeated lack of logic in setting up points, such as the italicized passage below taken from the last post you quoted, is just getting perverse:

“You have a choice to make here...given what you wrote above and the line you have drawn.... You either have to accept that ... or...assert that...”

The ellipses removed the usual misinterpretations. No, this person is not obligated to “make a choice” or “accept” because of how another person incorrectly and continually tells them what they said, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

And this inaccuracy is just offensive:

Markk:

The example in this thread is that people were really upset with Smokey's rants, and understandably. Yet, when faced with the moral decision as to whether that same type of hate ( passionate and aggressive hate of a faith or people) offered against, in this case, Christians and Mormons...their being upset and vocal is just not there.

Markk is the only one in this thread of the opinion that other people here offer “the same type of hate” as Smokey. No one faced the “moral decision” he is asserting they did, nor did all fail to make a proper moral decision, as he continues to imply. The continued representation of his opinion about this as though it were a given fact under discussion is really dishonest. Why he can’t just speak to his own opinions on this is beyond me.

[Morley]

Spoken like a true Creationist.

And like wise from a evolutionist.

maybe the best and most honest answer to the C vs. E is ..."they are both right for what they teach, yet both wrong for what they deny"....Markk 3:16

Creationism and evolution are not each partly right and partly wrong.

This is the same moral equivalence you're trying to inject with your statement that we're all hypocrites. And the suggestion that Smokey's hate speech really isn't any worse than other perspectives expressed on this board.

I don't agree. I think that this approach is embraced with such placid docility is the bane of modernity.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To summarize Markk’s super deep gnosticism... Everyone is the same, we’re all right and wrong, he’s got it figured out, and therefore he’s justified for finding his moral outrage not with a Christian Identity #DezNat poster who believes Jews are literal demons and should be exterminated, but with the people who take umbrage with it because we bicker about Mormonism on a Mormonism discussion board. Oh, and sometimes we cuss, so we’re just as hateful as Smokey.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Markk makes the same mistake at least twice in his argument: confusing specific conduct with the labels that can be applied to them. That way, he gets to skip over the hard part of discussing hypocrisy — whether the actual conduct is in fact inconsistent with an individual’s stated values.

I criticized Smokey’s posts as vigorously as anyone, but not because his posts for the definition of “hate.” I really don’t care whether Smokey hates Jews. I do care about conduct that has resulted in the mass murder of an ethnic group in the past and continues to cause them to be killed today, especially when the conduct is the spreading of malicious lies. Smokey claims that Jews are literal subhuman spawn of Satan who are in an existential war with the white race — the true chosen people of God. In his mind, that justifies spreading lies about and persecuting Jews.

Just to be crystal clear for Markk — I would react similarly to any comparable conduct directed against Christians, Mormons, or any other religious or ethnic group. The harm that results from spreading malicious lies about a group for the purpose of dehumanizing them into evil subhumans has been amply established in events ranging from the Holocaust to the Rwandan genocide. The problem is not that such conduct can be labeled as “hate” — the problem is the clear harm to fellow humans caused by Smokey’s conduct.

I haven’t reacted similarly to fat jokes aimed at a particular apologist because I have not seen anything in those comments that approach the demonstrated harm caused by Smokey’s tactics. I haven’t seen anyone trying to persuade folks here that Peterson or Mormons or Christians are literal subhumans acting as the army of Satan. I haven’t seen people advocating that Christians are trying to destroy the white race and must be stopped by any means. I don’t see anything about Paul’s anus thread that incite violence against Christians or Mormons. Guys aren’t shooting up sacrament meetings after posting manifestos on the subject of does Jesus have an anus.

In other words, I can articulate specific and detailed differences between Smokey’s conduct and other conduct. And if there are meaningful differences between the two, then it is in no way hypocritical to treat the cases differently.

That’s the critical analysis that Markk tries to ignore. Everything is the same and everything is different. The hard work lies in figuring out which samenesses and which differences are important. Whether we can slap the same label on two examples of conduct is probably the least important sameness of all.

[Markk]

RI...wrong, my comparison was hate against Mormon's, Christians, Muslim's...and DCP...etc...and it that context as you correctly agreed with hate is the same. I compared genocides of real people that is happening today to ten's of thousands of people with Kish. Is it worse hating Jews than it is hating Christians, when Christian's are being pushed out of their countries and murdered? No...the hate is the same RI.

If you really want to whittle it down to Paul's form of hate does not induce violence, that is a staw-man. What we do here is encourage folks to hate Mormonism, and the by product of that is people read it, I believe in ignorance and in turn hate Mormons, which is not good IMO.

Your analysis is just as I asserted towards the beginnings of the thread, a "justified brand of hate, rated on a curve ." In other words...my hating Y is okay in that it is not as bad as hating Z.