Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[Surrealist]

But those books are going into public schools.

That comment has nothing to do with my arguments concerning the specific case being discussed.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.

It all comes down to misinformation. If you spread misinformation you can be sued for it. We should have an ammendment to the constitution so that you have freedom of speech, provided that its not misinformation you are spreading.

 

[Surrealist]

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.

We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

 

[Cyrus]

Free speech is not an absolute, for exmaple:

-Defamation/Slander/Libel
-Obscenity
-Lying in court
-Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
-Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater

 

[Cyrus]

We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

A private organization can make their own museum if they want to. I already said that much earlier in this thread.

I added to my post and it showed up before I saw your post.

 

[moe darklight]

Surrealist, I don't oppose freedom of speech or the freedom to make a museum on something I don't agree with. But like cyrusabdollahi said, try building a bridge with made up science.
There is a difference between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation.

Extreme example: If a group of people out there were publishing books making up health benefits for crystal-meth, and they claimed this was backed up by the scientific method. would you say they have the right to publish this book?
I hope not. I would say they have the right to believe that crystal-meth is good for you all they want. Hell, they even have the right to propose research to be done in search of these supposed health benefits and publish their proposal... just don't claim that it was proven when it wasn't.

It scares the **** out of me that people like you--people who want to take away individual freedoms--are flourishing in this country.

if it makes you feel any better: I'm Canadian

 

[Smurf]

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

In Cyrus defence, it was only a minute after you posted, he was probably in the editing screen when you posted.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I didn't know that. I'll check it out. I don't know much about the new testament, so I won't comment on it. In the old testament God seems pretty insistent on constantly making a point of his word being perfect.

Can you provide an example?

 

[MeJennifer]

I couldn't believe this story when I saw it...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070528/creation_museum/20070528?hub=TopStories

From the article:
"The non-profit group created the US$27 million Creation Museum, but protestors said the money could have been better spent. ``Twenty-seven million dollars could have gone towards a lot of other things other than propping up a fairy tale,`` said one man."

Not sure what there is to protest.
This money comes from private contributions.

You've got to be f'in kidding me. These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.

This kind of commentary is inappropriate IMHO.

Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

Also I find this statement highly offensive.

A meaningless life is living by a stupid book written by men that's full of myths and fairytales and closing your mind.

When we are young we have far less life experience than when we get older. At the same time young people tend to think they know it all
Sometimes these books provide information that can help avoid problems later in life, we may not understand them when we are young, but when we get older we are more prone to understand them.
I do not disagree with the notion that most stories in religious writings are fictional and mythological but that does not mean they are useless and are as you call it closing the mind. I do recommend others to read religious works, not only do I consider it part of general education but also these writings contain wisdom about human nature.

 

[Surrealist]

Free speech is not an absolute, for exmaple:

-Defamation/Slander/Libel
-Obscenity
-Lying in court
-Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
-Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Then I guess you agree that those guys were doing none of the above when they opened their own private museum on creationism... but thanks for the completely off-topic remark... you almost steered the conversation onto another subject.

 

[Artman]

Here is a good essay on the perils of literal interpretation of the Bible:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/aageson_biblicaltext.htm"

...For example, in Mark 12:1-9, Jesus tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for a wine press, built a watchtower, and then rented it to tenants before leaving for another country. When the harvest came, he sent a slave to collect the rent, but the tenants seized and beat him instead of giving him the owner's share of the harvest. Other slaves were sent, and they, too, were beaten or killed. Finally the owner sent his own son thinking that the tenants would honor him and give him his share of the rent. Instead they seized him, killed him, and threw his body out of the vineyard. If a reader of this story were simply to read the surface level of the text, the entire point would be missed because this is a parable that takes the form of an allegory. In other words, the characters in the story refer to other figures: God, prophets, Christ, etc. A meaningful, dare we say a correct reading of this text, requires more than a literal adherence to the surface level of the words. In that sense of "literal," a surface reading of the text would be anything but a sound reading of the text. An insightful reading would require other judgments about the text to be made, for example, the literary genre of the text, in this case an allegory...

 

[Cyrus]

This kind of commentary is inappropriate IMHO...Also I find this statement highly offensive.

Sorry if its offensive, but I find religion to be highly offensive. All I hear from my one friend is how "Jesus died for me" and that I need to convert for Jeusus. I hate people ringing my doorbell asking for donations to their church. I hate the whole damm concept of religion for weak minded people to follow in the masses. ARG I HATE RELIGION PERIOD! I am not kidding when I say its a plague and its infesting the minds of everyone around the world. I hate people (like my friend, and I tell him this all the time) that are close minded because they believe in 'faith' and won't hear logic and reason first. These people are dangeous to society.

When we are young we have far less life experience than when we get older. At the same time young people tend to think they know it all

I don't have to be old to know somethings bad for you.

Sometimes these books provide information that can help avoid problems later in life, we may not understand them when we are young, but when we get older we are more prone to understand them.
I do not disagree with the notion that most stories in religious writings are fictional and mythological but that does not mean they are useless and are as you call it closing the mind. I do recommend others to read religious works, not only do I consider it part of general education but also these writings contain wisdom about human nature.

Yes, but many books provide the same information on how to live life without the need of GOD. The bible should be restricted to the fiction section of the library.

When people are born into religion its like being fed heroin since birth. These people will never break the habbit no matter what, and that scares the hell out of me. There are very few people I have ever met that were religious and turned athiest. The majority become more and more religious as they get older. The sight of people standing around holding hands and crying, shaking, and praising something that does not exist is very distrubing to me.

 

[MeJennifer]

I don't have a problem with you hating religion, frankly I don't care.
But I do have a problem with statements like:

You've got to be f'in kidding me. These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.

Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

These people are dangeous to society.

These statements are offensive. I would be as much offended if we´d replace "Religious people" or "These people" with infidels, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, Jews or any other group that does not violate the laws.

 

[drankin]

Cyrus, I completely understand your stance on religion. I know where you are coming from. But, in basic principle, for someone to live by the teachings of Christianity, (not a political, or an activist type Christian), is very healthy for a person, family, and community. I pick Christianity because it is the only religion I am familiar with. The values, in general, are "good" for society.

The country was founded on religious freedom. To turn around and condemn all religions for the sake of the keeping America a great country does not make sense in this respect. It wouldn't be the America it was intended to be when all is said and done.

Also, people standing around holding hands, crying, and shaking... I heard this is how the Quakers got their name. "quaking".

They are having what is called a "religous" experience. What's wrong with that?

 

[Moridin]

It is irrelevant if you feel that they are offending. The US have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Religious freedom is so that the government are prevented from preventing religious people from carrying out the customs of their religion. It does not, in any way, shield them from criticism. At all.

According to Gallup, one third of the US population believe that the bible represents absolute truth and over 40% thinks that evolution never happened and that the Earth is less than 10 000 years. Religious freedom argument is not a valid defense.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27682
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814

A creation museum should be dealt in the same manner as if they trying to build museums to show that the holocaust never happened.

 

[drankin]

A creation museum should be dealt in the same manner as if they trying to build museums to show that the holocaust never happened.

A religous museum vs a museum that depicts that the holocaust never happened? I'm amazed at how threatened people are when other people peacefully excercise their religious freedom in this country. What is the threat exactly?

 

[Moridin]

It is not a threat, it is just a thought-provoking analogy for equalizing religious and racial prejudice.

You need to let go of this notion that they are only 'peacefully exercising their religious freedom' as if their behavior deserves appeasement. People who are against the description of the Holocaust could say that they are exercising their religious freedom, but I think that we can all agree that such a museum would be enormously damaging to our modern society and humanity as a whole.

We must stop ignoring the neochristian ID/AiG movements. This museum is just another pathetic attempt to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

 

[drankin]

It is not a threat, it is just a thought-provoking analogy for equalizing religious and racial prejudice.

You need to let go of this notion that they are only 'peacefully exercising their religious freedom' as if their behavior deserves appeasement. People who are against the description of the Holocaust could say that they are exercising their religious freedom, but I think that we can all agree that such a museum would be enormously damaging to our modern society and humanity as a whole.

We must stop ignoring the neochristian ID/AiG movements. This museum is just another pathetic attempt to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

There is no religious foundation for declaring that the Holocaust did not take place. It can't be compared to this religious museum. The reason I emphasize "peaceful" is because jihad is also a religious expression but peaceful? Not so much.

There is no "neochristian" movement. Christians in this country have not changed since it was founded. To now call it a "movement" is not correct. If that were correct then it has been a movement in this country for hundreds of years.

 

[Moridin]

Some parts of Islamic and Christian dogmatic movements that attest that the Holocaust never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+holocaust+never+happened&btnG=Google+Search (notice how the two first hits are from Christian websites)

They are a small organisation, just as ID or AiG in that they do not represent the majority of the people within their religion.

It is a valid analogy. I don't want a museum on creation for the same reason as you do not want a museum where they present 'evidence' that the Holocaust never happened. Both would be trying to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

 

[drankin]

Some parts of Islamic and Christian dogmatic movements that attest that the Holocaust never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+holocaust+never+happened&btnG=Google+Search (notice how the two first hits are from Christian websites)

They are a small organisation, just as ID or AiG in that they do not represent the majority of the people within their religion.

It is a valid analogy. I don't want a museum on creation for the same reason as you do not want a museum where they present 'evidence' that the Holocaust never happened. Both would be trying to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

The distinction is that denying the holocaust is denying that millions of Jews were killed. The museum simply promotes an unscientific view of the origin of mankind. One is offensive to relatives and survivors of the Holocaust, and is also offensive to all who abhor genecide. The other is simply offensive to the scientific community (but no one died). I don't believe the comparison is valid.

 

[Moridin]

It is so much more than simply offending the scientific community, if that is even true. It is an assault on reason, offending to anyone with a shred of intelligence, just as denying the Holocaust is. It is an assault on reality, trying to indoctrinate people in what is neither real nor factual. A creation museum is ever so dangerous as a anti-holocaust one, because both are a treat to reason, both a treat to humanity.

 

[drankin]

It is so much more than simply offending the scientific community, if that is even true. It is an assault on reason, offending to anyone with a shred of intelligence, just as denying the Holocaust is. It is an assault on reality, trying to indoctrinate people in what is neither real nor factual. A creation museum is ever so dangerous as a anti-holocaust one, because both are a treat to reason, both a treat to humanity.

I suppose this goes for churches as well? Maybe one day all churches will be abolished? Then all who practice religion at all will be arrested for defying reason? Where does your line of reasoning end?

 

[out of whack]

The freedom to be offensive to others can either be protected or restricted, but I don't see why the reason it is offensive should be relevant or why it is better or worse when it is either political or religious in nature. Offending and being offended in various ways seems perfectly natural and human. I see neither reason nor means to regulate it. Let people speak and let others reply, noting that civility often speaks louder than insults.

 

[Artman]

Found this while following the links in the 2nd post on this thread (the link I followed was posted by neutrino). It's called the "Clergy Letter Project" it is a statement by clergy members in support of the scientific community in general, and as a result of defending the theory of evolution in specific. More than 10,000 clergy persons have signed.

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm"

 

[Kurdt]

One must question the motives of opening such a museum in the first place. The owner is a well known roponent of teaching creationism in schools under the disguise of intelligent design. One wonders whether this museum is an expression of his religious freedom or just another attempt to force-feed the public his views.

Religious expression is fine, but when the motivation of those expressing it is to convert others covertly or force their religion upon others then it becomes very dangerous.

 

[Moridin]

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf (sister site to talkorigins)

"We intent these to encourage and equip with new scientific evidences that supports the faith, as well to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."

Sounds familiar?

 

[daveb]

[

Sorry if its offensive, but I find religion to be highly offensive. All I hear from my one friend is how "Jesus died for me" and that I need to convert for Jeusus. I hate people ringing my doorbell asking for donations to their church. I hate the whole damm concept of religion for weak minded people to follow in the masses. ARG I HATE RELIGION PERIOD! I am not kidding when I say its a plague and its infesting the minds of everyone around the world. I hate people (like my friend, and I tell him this all the time) that are close minded because they believe in 'faith' and won't hear logic and reason first. These people are dangeous to society.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. There are also people who are close minded because they believe only in logic and reason, and refuse to see that faith can have be part of society as well. If it wasn't then it's a miracle mankind has survived as long as it has.

Yes, but many books provide the same information on how to live life without the need of GOD. The bible should be restricted to the fiction section of the library.

Actually, it should be restricted to the religion/philosophy section. Unlesss you also require that (some) Aristotle and Plato also be placed in fiction.

When people are born into religion its like being fed heroin since birth. These people will never break the habbit no matter what, and that scares the hell out of me. There are very few people I have ever met that were religious and turned athiest. The majority become more and more religious as they get older.

I have news for you. Many people break free of this, and either turn atheist or agnostic. Go talk to a member of the Universalist Unitarian Church. A great deal of them are (jokingly) self-referred as recovering Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.

The sight of people standing around holding hands and crying, shaking, and praising something that does not exist is very distrubing to me.

Why does this disturb you? Who are they harming in performing these specific actions?

 

[Moridin]

Religious indoctrination is a serious issue all around the world, from conservative US to fundamentalist Iran.

It is described in the second part of a Channel 4 documentary http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&q=the+virus+of+faith&hl=en

 

[Surrealist]

First, I want to say that people should be allowed to live in ignorance. There is no law requiring people to be "right" in their personal beliefs. People should have the right to believe in the creation story, and they should have the right to raise families with these beliefs.

It bothers me that people on these boards want the government to step in and police the thoughts of American citizens.

Since people on this board seem extremely short-sighted, I will reiterate than I am neither a Christian nor a believer in creationism. I am just a concerned citizen who sees other citizens trying to interfere with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion rights of others.

Let's not forget that social norms are cyclic. It was not too long ago that certain societies decided that intellectuals should persecuted. Books were burned and banned and speech that challenged the government was silenced.

I do not want to see anyone's rights taken away--not in the least. Once a precedent is set, it opens a Pandora's Box of uncertainty.

What happens when suddenly something you strongly believe in is suddenly "out of style" (or no longer a social norm), and people want to take away your rights?

 

[Moridin]

There is a difference between being open-minded and being gullible. Having an open mind is objectively investigating scientific evidence. It means accepting possibilities, but evaluating probability. It does not mean believing in everything.

By criticizing people who apply logic and science to religion and trying to attack them with 'not respecting religious freedom or freedom of speech' is guilty to the same.

You need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

 

[Surrealist]

My words are wasting on you. Your mind is too closed to accept the fact that people are entitled to choose their own way of life.

You have the right to criticize others. You do not have the right to interfere with the lives of others.

End of story.

 

[Moridin]

I have already refuted the 'closed mind' argument. Read my analogy with a museum that promotes a denial of the Holocaust.

This is not about whether people are allowed to think for themselves. It is about what happens when they are trying to indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

You still need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

 

[Artman]

cyrusabdollahi,

Your views towards religion are so harsh as to be neglegable. Statistically speaking they are so far to one side that they would be ignored, along with the view of someone diametrically opposed. The best way to change these closed minds is with the help of open minded Christians such as the 10,000 clergy members who signed that letter opposing creationist dribble.

 

[Surrealist]

This is not about whether people are allowed to think for themselves. It is about what happens when they are trying to indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

You still need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

No, you and cyrus seem to try to steer the conversation in a different direction every time you realize you are wrong... just so that you can feel like you are right about a different argument.

This argument pertains to people and their right to have a museum of their choice. It does not pertain to religion in schools, or whether or not those same people might be trying to incorporate their believes into a federal or state sponsored system.

Stop accusing me of combining political and religious beliefs with my scientific beliefs. I never made any statements that would provoke such an accusation.

You need to separate your anger from your logic, then you will be able to think clearly.

 

[Moridin]

Your post is filled with ad hominem, which is not that professional.

Did you read the link to the Wedge Document that I posted? It is all part of their plan to destroy science and inject religious creationism into the schools, the government and society. This is their own written agenda.

I am especially critical of this type of appeasement against religion, even though it is clearly that these groups are trying indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

Now you have suddenly shifted from the 'religious freedom' argument I refuted earlier to some kind of 'everyone can start a museum no matter the consequences'.

There should be restrictions on museums that try to inject denial of the Holocaust in society as well as trying to deny evolution and science as a whole for that matter.

It has nothing to do with religious freedom or freedom of speech. It is increasingly imperative for you to separate the concepts of political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.