Customer Discussions > Science forum

Are creationists simply brainwashed?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 139 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 8:19:39 AM PDT
noman says:
There may be some truth to this. *Way* outside my field, but I've been reading some 'popular' books on the subject and, at least in my lay opinion, there seems to be a match with several of the posters on the science forum.
The Fundamentalist Mindset: Psychological Perspectives on Religion, Violence, and History

The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth

The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics)

**The short version seem to be that fundamentalist worldview is based on:
1)If I follow certain rules I will be saved from H*ll
2) The rules are specified in the Bible (or Quoran or etc)
3) I 'X' is true (evolution, global warming, etc) then the Bible (etc) is not true.
4) If the Bible (etc) is not true then I am *not* saved from H*ll.

As well, Fundamentalist thinking *thrives* on argument. The more people disagree with them or produce "evidence" that they are wrong, the more strongly they hold onto their core beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 8:06:23 AM PDT
Tero says:
yes.

Posted on Jun 2, 2012 7:51:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2012 7:55:35 AM PDT
Creationists are not terribly interested in what is objectively real. They choose a preferred subjective reality, which gives them conclusions they rationalize, often for selfish reasons... after all, everyone is at the center of their own personal subjective viewpoint of the universe... true "platonic" objectivity is only a concept. We could never know and understand absolutely everything. Religion is not trying to understand the universe around yourself but trying to rationalize the universe around yourself.

Conclusions... that they are significant, that they are immortal, that the group they associate themselves is special, that the universe was created for them to exist, that the universe has a "purpose" they can relate and agree with, that they are self-righteous, and that everything is simple "black and white" in the end, no grey...

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 6:10:30 PM PDT
Oh, me too usually. But when it gets personal I'll give it a go.

Hey --- MFEH, you forgot the hypothyroidism! Must be slipping in your dotage.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 4:46:23 PM PDT
Re Janis, above: I have long since given up paying any attention to MFEH: it is a complete waste of time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 3:59:00 PM PDT
"You, Christine, do not belong to science beyond your very personal survival ambition as a woman with insecure identity problems."

Thousands of scientific citations say otherwise (you jealous man).

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 9:43:29 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate them. I would have addressed the rude part but I rarely post anything in the religious forums. However, since this one was in the science forum, I thought I'd post my opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 9:15:23 AM PDT
Tero says:
nice ad hominem

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:31:25 AM PDT
I appreciate your fact-based opinion on the book writing. I also appreciate that it was not rude or arrogant. I kinda wished you had addressed that part as well, but I'll give you points for class.

Posted on May 30, 2012 5:33:20 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Interesting prediction you're spamming across multiple science threads... a prediction about the effectiveness of something that doesn't exist yet. On the Science threads.

I'm betting you don't see the irony, "Scholar."

Posted on May 30, 2012 5:05:25 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 1, 2012 3:39:52 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 4:58:09 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
You're correct that the findings of science can be employed for destructive ends... that's because scientific findings are USEFUL, i.e., they're actually and provably correct. Yes, scientists are fallible humans; which is why we have the scientific method and peer review, which helps eliminate or reduce such biases as much as possible, resulting in more reliable knowledge.

Really, every criticism you're making of science counts double for religion. The difference is that science admits error when new facts come to light--something religion is incapable of.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 3:24:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 30, 2012 3:26:00 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
All books are written by men. The Bible is said to be written by men under Gods guidance but without actual proof of that, how can we know since this claim has been passed down by generations of people since the beginning of Christianity? People nobody alive today could possibly have known firsthand.

Science texts are also written by men. But if a science text can forecast an eclipse, I know I can see the eclipse on the forecast date. If a scientific text says an airfoil has to have lower air pressure on the top than on the bottom, I know its true because I see airplanes fly. Airplanes made by humans. Above all else, science texts do not saddle me with baggage about how imperfect I am because I'm human. I'm well aware of my imperfections thanks to my own self critiques. In science, perfection is seen as more of a human construct than an actual state of being for anything. Science texts do not expect me to worship gravity or oxygen. Can scientists make mistakes? Of course, and when they do, they basically admit it in their revised theories or press releases. Cold fusion and solar system formation are two good examples. Cold fusion could not be verified satisfactorily by repeatable experimentation so it finds itself on the back burner if not the scrap heap, unless something revives it in a huge way. Solar system formation used our solar system as a model for what was thought would be exoplanet system formations. When hot Jupiters kept turning up, the solar system model went in for major overhaul. Some scientific theories may never be proven with direct observation of the theorized event. The Big Bang exemplifies this. Scientists theorize it happened based on evidence. Scientists admit they have no idea what, if anything existed before the bang.

Religion is faith based. Even the religious have said so in many cases. Faith obviously works for a good many people which is fine with me. Let them be religious and let us agnostics and atheists be agnostics and atheists. Those who are on the fence, choose the side your most comfortable with. For me, I don't know if God exists or not. But I'm not convinced by books written by humans, whether they be bronze age...or so called new age. I can live with that!

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 2:18:46 AM PDT
And the one's who put faith in textbooks written by men continues to be rude and arrogant. What a surprise!

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:56:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 8:57:09 PM PDT
Christine M. Janis wrote:
"I think that that's what happened to MFEH, with his obsession with Mr. Curtis on these forums. "
===========================
Mr. Curtis could benefit immensely from my constant hounding on his unfortunate obesity. That is the exact purpose of scientific improvement of health care.

On the other hand, your evolutionary biology disturbs the peace of creatures that lived and died millions of years ago. You, Christine, do not belong to science beyond your very personal survival ambition as a woman with insecure identity problems.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:02:29 PM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:56:35 PM PDT
terry dolittle says:
"how do you define legimate science? remember scientists are men, not gods, "

Precisely, hence the importance of the scientific method; which creationists then call "materialism" and so biased. Can't win.

"I would say they are brianwashed "

I think that that's what happened to MFEH, with his obsession with Mr. Curtis on these forums.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:56:35 PM PDT
how do you define legimate science? remember scientists are men, not gods, they have their own bias, ideas, faulty ideas and their motives may not necessarily be i the best interest of mankind. so how do you know your not brainwashed? many scientists use their knowledge for making weapons of mass destruction, stealth bombs, nuclear bombs, gas, biological weapons, if a scienctist feels these are necessary for a better world I would have to question their sanity. I would say they are brianwashed into believing in lies that making such things is going to bring a better world. I say nonsense, many scientists make products they know will harm people for the sake of profit. so beware scientists. they use science like the clergy use the bible (a legitimate book I might add like science is legit in itiself) and pervert it for a bad purpose.

rose

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 9:24:48 AM PDT
Re jpl, 5-14 3:16 PM: "How do I decondition myself?" Study science - a lot of it. In particular, come to understand how it works, what it can tell us, and why no other means can tell us anything [1].

1. For further elaboration on this, see my post in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd", which can be found by searching customer discussions for "saunderst".

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012 5:31:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012 5:31:32 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Well, if you're a creationist, you have every right to be offended. If you're simply a believer, I don't see the problem.

Creationism is the opposite of legitimate science, and therefore a valid topic of discussion in the Science forum. If you interpret that as "bashing believers," it suggests that you might be a creationist yourself.

In which case, please browse around; maybe you'll learn something that helps cure your ignorance!

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012 2:21:33 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:28:11 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
If you'll look closely, Rod, what's being discussed is a scientific topic: specifically, creationism. Not all believers are irrational, and not all believers are stupid. Creationists, however, are both.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 10:34:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 10, 2013 3:09:21 PM PST]

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:55:38 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 3:24:54 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Tim the Duke says: I don't see any evidence that creationists lack intelligence, however I see plenty of evidence of brainwashing from an early age, first by their parents, then by their teachers and finally pastors. As someone raised as a christian, the only reason I can see that I am not a creationist is that I was intelligent enough to resist brainwashing and was gifted with a high level of critical thinking skills. Do creationists lack the ability of critical thinking?

Lj3d: Creationists have demonstrated both ability to think and think intelligently, and to think critically. However, the power of belief in something is present to varying degrees within all of us. I have seen strong evidence here that this power of belief overrides the critical thinking skills of those who believe regardless of what it is they believe in, be it God, 911 and moon hoaxes, or UFOs. The need to believe erects a virtually inpenetrable evidence barrier in people with strong beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 3:17:41 PM PDT
"My intuition, testimony, inference to the best explanation ..."

Read "The God Part Of The Brain" and learn how your brain deceives you. We can't even accurately recall events from our childhood. This is why the only proof of the existence of god must be demonstrable and not some mental voodoo.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  139
Initial post:  Oct 23, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions