What's worse, creationism or homophobia?

[Daecon]

Try to remember, worse according to whom?

 

 

What's worse - A lion eating a zebra or a lion not eating a zebra?

 

Well, to to the zebra, the lion eating him is worse, but to the lion, not eating the zebra is worse.

 

Yet both the lion and the zebra are part of the same society. The definition of worse is subjective, relative to the interpreter.

 

I disagree. The lion and zebra are two completely different societies, one of which is dependent on the other for survival, but they're still different.

 

Are you implying that homophobia is okay if you're straight? If you're equating people to zebras and lions, that is...?

[someguy]

I have sympathy for smokers, since nicotine is as addictive as heroin and we have made tobacco use legal.

 

people easily talk about the addictiveness of smoking and how it will kill you but if you think about it we are all addicted to technology and that's killing everything on the planet.

 

I think that it is less that smokers can't smell the smell and more that they like the smell they make. I don't think that being addicted to smoking is any different then having the taste of something grow on you. except many foods will give you the nutrition your body asks for whereas only cigarettes provide the nicotine. quitting smoking is just like going on a radical diet. Many people find that very difficult.

 

 

personally i'm a smoker and to me i hate the smell of smoke residue or whatever it is, like the smell of ashtrays, if the residue doesn't smell like ashtrays which sometimes for some reason it doesn't then i don't mind it. the smell of the cigarettes burning i like, but once they've been put out or sometimes the residue smell i really dislike.

[Royston]

people easily talk about the addictiveness of smoking and how it will kill you but if you think about it we are all addicted to technology and that's killing everything on the planet.

 

You can't compare nicotine addiction with technology, and how is technology responsible for killing everything on the planet. A technology that has been developed to purposely be compulsive could be comparable to an addictive substance...for instance WOW

 

With regards to what YT said, how is a shed on an allotment a public place...unless YT is selling his home brew to the general public from his shed, I fail to see how it classes as a public area. Cigarette smoke stains on the interior of a shed, are hardly a health hazard.

[YT2095]

it isn`t a public place nor will it ever be.

 

please, back to topic now everyone

[iNow]

I disagree. The lion and zebra are two completely different societies, one of which is dependent on the other for survival, but they're still different.

 

Are you implying that homophobia is okay if you're straight? If you're equating people to zebras and lions, that is...?

 

No... not at all, but I can see now what a crappy analogy I'd made. My bad.

 

I'd suggest that homophobia is never okay, unless maybe you have some mental disorder where you are more prone to be phobic. Phobias happen, and tend to have evolved for good reason... innate tendency to be afraid of cliffs and the baby doesn't crawl off of one; innate tendency to be afraid of snakes and we don't get bitten by them... those things work. What's the benefit of a phobia toward someone who is homosexual? Social control? I dunno...

 

Also, ParanoiA calls to my attention a good point regarding "hating a group FOR hating." I notice myself doing this all too often, and it reaks of hypocracy. Thanks for the reminder.

[john5746]

"Hating someone for what they are, or

Hating someone for what they think and/or have been taught?"

 

Creationists are creationists because that's what they've been taught to think, the same goes for homophobic attitudes, too. Nobody is born homophobic anymore than they're born a creationist.

 

Also, could homophobia be considered a type of racism?

 

I we consider that both are incorrect ideas, then the comparison becomes:

 

1) Which does more harm? In general, the homophopic, since they are prejudice towards others. But, if a homophobic stays to themselves and never does anything against homosexuals(including voting), while a creationist convinces millions that science is wrong about evolution, climate change, etc - then I say the latter is worse.

 

 

2) How easy is it to change the behaviour? I am unsure about this. Homophobia is a type of prejudice, just as racism is a form of prejudice. This is learned, but I think humans come by this group thinking naturally, as a survival skill. No formal education should be required to stop thinking this way though.

 

 

 

 

If you are going there, I suggest you focus on the common denominator to both creationism and homophobia in the West: Fundamentalism. This is a new religion that identifies itself as "Christian" but is not. It is sneaking into Christianity and taking it over from the inside unless the Christians opposing it manage to stop it. One of Fundamentalism's main creeds is an inerrant, literal Bible. It is this creed that fuels the sexism, creationism, and homophobia within the religion.

 

 

New religion? There may be a recent surge in evangelicalism in America, but this has been in response to the increased secularization of Christianity during the last century. This is how people start thinking we cannot have morals without religion. Whenever society becomes enlightened, it is adopted - usually with teeth gnashing and foot dragging into the religion. Then, it is claimed that we would not have these morals if we lose the religion. AAAAGGGGHHHH!!

[Tony Benett]

I've registered on SFN purely to respond to the question: "What is worse, creationism or homophobia?' - which popped up under a Google Alert I have on 'creationism'.

 

What is 'bad' about creationism? The Bible's account of a 6-day creation followed by a world-wide Flood is fully consistent with known scientific facts e.g, in biology, palaeontology, geology etc. A recent OFSTED report found that Sir Peter Vardy's academy schools in the north of England, where pupils learn 'creation science' alongside (note, not instead of) the theory of evoluition, produced excellent results - a very high academic standard and students of good character. Most of the attacks on creationists are by those who have an unshakeable faith in the theory of evolution and are unwilling to debate alternatives. Is there one scientific fact which disproves a 6-day creation or a world-wide Flood?

 

As for 'homophobia', what is the precise definition of this neologism coined recently by the gay community? It should, logically, mean 'fear (or hatred) of homosexuals'. But in practice the word is frequently used to attack anyone who does not wholeheartedly support the gay agenda - that is, people like me who oppose e.g. 'gay marriage', and 'gay adoption' and who do not want to see homosexuality portrayed in schools as an equally valid lifestyle to marriage.

 

And for good reason, since 'science' reveals to us the adverse health consequences of the gay lifestyle for so many who adopt it.

 

I do not hate or fear homosexuals and in my career have never treated them adversely in any way. But the God revealed in the Bible created us male and female - and ordained a committed marriage as the institution for raising children. He also said that sex should take place only within a committed (heterosexual) marriage. If believing that makes one 'homophobic', then you have defined the word incorrectly.

 

What harm has been committed by those, sometimes called 'homophobic', whi have pointed out the dangers of the 'gay lifestyle'?

 

P.S. If anyone feels inclined to attack the Bible, fisrt give me one - just one - historical fact in the Bible that has ever been disproved

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[YT2095]

lets see, the 7 Plagues from God... when in FACT it was a Geological event due to a volcano! and bugger all to do with some Deity!

 

a world wide flood... where did all the water go?

 

why are there no skeletal remains of Nephalim?

 

coz it didn`t happen

[Daecon]

Wow. A creationist AND a bigot all in one.

 

What happened, did you forget where you left your bridge?

[YT2095]

Trans it gets better mate

 

He also said that sex should take place only within a committed (heterosexual) marriage.

 

I`ll bet he`s the sort that would buy a car without taking it for a test-drive first too!

[the tree]

After thinking about it for about ten minutes, I'd say lies and uncritical thought are more damaging that a generally repulsive opinion.

[swansont]

I we consider that both are incorrect ideas, then the comparison becomes:

 

1) Which does more harm? In general, the homophopic, since they are prejudice towards others. But, if a homophobic stays to themselves and never does anything against homosexuals(including voting), while a creationist convinces millions that science is wrong about evolution, climate change, etc - then I say the latter is worse.

 

What if the creationst keeps to himself and the homophobe goes out and beats people up? I think you're mixing the belief up with actions taken by people who hold that belief.

 

What is 'bad' about creationism? The Bible's account of a 6-day creation followed by a world-wide Flood is fully consistent with known scientific facts

 

The "Jokes" section is here

[Sisyphus]

Also hating those who hate. I always laugh when I hear someone overcompensate their supposed lack of prejudice by hating the KKK, or homophobes and etc...

 

Is it really prejudice if you hate them because of their jackass opinions? "Bigotry" and "hate" are not synonyms.

[Sayonara]

I've registered on SFN purely to respond to the question: "What is worse, creationism or homophobia?' - which popped up under a Google Alert I have on 'creationism'.

Well good. Most of the Creationists we get here only register to make drive-by statements, and are not interested in discussion of any sort. Having said that, prepare to be mauled

 

What is 'bad' about creationism?

What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb (in the sense that it is the one thing we all agree on as a scientific community; obviously individuals will have additional criticisms) is that in its worst form it has several negative effects on the way in which its supporters think:

- It actively seeks to prevent critical thought,

- It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science,

- It is ludicrously selective in its attacks,

- It passes lies as facts,

- It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic,

- It prevents minds from questioning the world.

 

The Bible's account of a 6-day creation followed by a world-wide Flood is fully consistent with known scientific facts e.g, in biology, palaeontology, geology etc.

Well no, it isn't. This does not of course mean that we will never find evidence that strongly supports the idea, but at the current time there is little or no evidence to support Noah's flood and ample rational evidence that makes it pretty much impossible.

 

This is a science site, so if you wish to make an argument for a global flood then you are the one who needs to provide evidence. Although this particular thread is perhaps not the place to do that; I would suggest an "Evidence for a Historical Global Flood" thread in the Speculations forum or the General Discussions forum. You may also wish to use the search function to find previous threads on that topic - I believe it has come up before.

 

A recent OFSTED report found that Sir Peter Vardy's academy schools in the north of England, where pupils learn 'creation science' alongside (note, not instead of) the theory of evoluition, produced excellent results - a very high academic standard and students of good character.

Two things:

 

1) The OFSTED report provides a qualitative appraisal of the educational standard of the colleges. It makes no commentary on whether or not the teaching of creationism has anything to do with the overall academic results.

 

2) In an interview with the BBC last year, Vardy stated that he "would be concerned if creationism was taught as fact in [his] schools". So either you are wrong, or he is a liar.

 

 

Most of the attacks on creationists are by those who have an unshakeable faith in the theory of evolution and are unwilling to debate alternatives.

This is demonstrably not the case. And in fact, it is also not the case that "attacks" on Creationism take place on anything like the same scale as Creationist attacks on science.

 

It is not scientists who travel the web finding Creationist sites to spam with their beliefs; it is the other way around. You will find dozens of threads on this forum where YE Creationists have landed and posted scathing and wildly inaccurate attacks on evolution. The time that scientists waste arguing with YECs is usually spent in defence, not attack.

 

We have no particular reason to attack your beliefs. YECs have every reason to attack science as some of their beliefs are contradicted by it. It is just such a great shame that through either stupidity, laziness, dishonesty, or a fear of actually using science properly, so many YECs are willing to abuse logic and reasoning in order to air their views.

 

Is there one scientific fact which disproves a 6-day creation or a world-wide Flood?

Well, yes. Plenty. But the onus is not on "science" to "disprove" something for which you have not bothered to provide any evidence.

 

As for 'homophobia', what is the precise definition of this neologism coined recently by the gay community? It should, logically, mean 'fear (or hatred) of homosexuals'. But in practice the word is frequently used to attack anyone who does not wholeheartedly support the gay agenda - that is, people like me who oppose e.g. 'gay marriage', and 'gay adoption' and who do not want to see homosexuality portrayed in schools as an equally valid lifestyle to marriage.

Some people are trigger-happy with the word, therefore we can ignore any other social or psychological effects that might be described by that word, is that it?

 

If all people don't use the word properly, then gay bashing, sexuality-motivated crime, discrimination, prejudice, inequity, and religious intolerance can all be overlooked?

 

Please try harder.

 

And for good reason, since 'science' reveals to us the adverse health consequences of the gay lifestyle for so many who adopt it.

By "the gay lifestyle" I am going to assume you mean gay sex.

 

There is no scientific reason why homosexual activity per se should be considered "more dangerous" to your health than heterosexual activity. People are more at risk because of their own personal choices (failing to use the appropriate form of protection for the act, for example), which has nothing to do with their sexuality.

 

Regardless, if your motives are in any way noble, moral and right, then surely the health risks which you perceive homosexuality to bring with it (a) make no comment about the "validity" of people being gay (what a nasty and dishonest way to describe the condition), and (b) should be taught in great detail to schoolchildren to ensure that this "gay lifestyle", which you apparently perceive as a medical threat, is discouraged.

 

I hope you realise that none of the issues you have with homosexuality justify or ameliorate the existence of homophobia, in any way, shape, or form.

 

I do not hate or fear homosexuals and in my career have never treated them adversely in any way. But the God revealed in the Bible created us male and female - and ordained a committed marriage as the institution for raising children.

Why should people who do not believe in that god follow his rules?

 

Why should people who are not in the "institution for raising children" care about committed marriages?

 

He also said that sex should take place only within a committed (heterosexual) marriage.

God said a lot of things. If we took them all literally, and based society's moral structure off them, most of us would have been stoned to death by now - including you. So if you want to cherry-pick which of God's commandments you are going to follow, then presumably you will have to come up with a justification for that which would satisfy God Himself.

 

If believing that makes one 'homophobic', then you have defined the word incorrectly.

I think this is a case of you trying to substitute in a meaning which the OP did not intend.

 

What harm has been committed by those, sometimes called 'homophobic', whi have pointed out the dangers of the 'gay lifestyle'?

I believe the OP is referring to those people who actively seek to promote hatred and violence towards the gay community, and as someone who regularly deals with the aftermath of hate crimes, I can assure you that the answer is "****loads".

 

If you think that nobody has ever been hurt by homophobia, you are living in la la happy dimwit land. People have been physically injured, had their lives, property and careers destroyed, been driven from their homes, and have even been killed because of homophobia. And people like you are complicit in that because you seek to divert attention away from fighting it.

 

Do you understand? You can say "I do not hate or fear homosexuals and in my career have never treated them adversely in any way", but the fact remains that your attitude makes you complicit. Complicit.

 

If anyone feels inclined to attack the Bible, fisrt give me one - just one - historical fact in the Bible that has ever been disproved

There is no requirement to pay an academic admission fee before making a criticism of popular literature.

 

 

 

Do you see what my response reveals about (i) your post and (ii) your question regarding our view of Creationism?

 

I will spell it out just in case anyone missed the (admittedly subtle) point: You claimed to be answering the question of "which is worse, creationism or homophobia", but instead you used misdirection and dishonesty to launch pre-emptive attacks on bible criticisms, and to mud-sling at homosexuals and those who would defend their right to equality.

 

 

And that is one of the main things that we find so abhorrent about Creationism. The movement has no moral fibre. For Creationists, you see, far too readily allow themselves the moral latitude to lie, swindle, and deceive, and to spread hatred, doubt, uncertainty, and animosity within their own society.

 

That is hardly compatible with genuine Christian beliefs.

 

 

Incidentally, you may wish to read this thread before you continue here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13261

[Realitycheck]

P.S. If anyone feels inclined to attack the Bible, fisrt give me one - just one - historical fact in the Bible that has ever been disproved

 

Creationist claims, creationist defenses, creationist lies, lies, lies, bla, bla, bla. Give me proof that people lived 900 years. Give me proof that the world was created in 6 days. Give me proof that the Red Sea was parted. Give me proof that the Nile was turned into blood. Give me proof that Jesus walked on water. Give me proof that Jesus was actually dead.

 

Surely, if someone was able to live 900 years, they would have a grand tomb with a body that could be scientifically verified as living that long. Nothing but baseless claims. Creationists simply do not comprehend the meaning of the word myth. Offense is so much more fun than defense.

[YT2095]

it wasn`t blood, it was an oxide contamination IIRC.

[Realitycheck]

Oh, well then what happened is the Jewish slaves had 50 million tons of iron shipped in and dumped into the river to make it turn red. Why didn't I think of that?

[Sayonara]

I would have thought an algal bloom more likely.

[Realitycheck]

Also, it wasn't just a few guys living to be 900 years old. Just about the entire Jewish family lived 200 years, 300 years, 500 years, 900 years. Surely, somewhere, we should be able to come up with a body somewhere. Surely, we should be able to come up with a 19 ft. tall Nefelim somewhere.

[Sayonara]

If only they had said people lived to be dinosaurs, then we would be swimming in evidence.

[YT2095]

the PH did shift and that`s why the frogs jumped out (they`re sensitive to that kind of change) and you could be right with the algea too I know Oxygen played a part in it, but it was a loooong time af=go, I`ve forgotten quite a few things, the blisters were literally Glass splinters coated in sulphuric acid (hence the blisters and sores), the river receding is also common with earth movement, entire Oceans will do it even.

 

all perfectly explained along with historical Evidence still there today

 

but getting back to topic, I think my Venn idea works, you can say that within the Set of YECs homophobia is entire.

 

and by the evidence provided here BY a yec, we can also state accurately that there are Other traits that fit the "Worse" as outlined prior.

 

YECs are worse. QED.

[Pangloss]

So much for not arguing creationism on these boards.....

[Sayonara]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my point - which I galvanised at the end of my post - was entirely on topic.

 

Having said that, as if I need to explain myself, I think our major concern in the area of "not arguing creationism" is actually the hit-and-run thread starter league, and not the people who reply to threads in a way that helps us illustrate the foolishness of it all.

[Tony Benett]

sayonara wrote:

 

"There is no scientific reason why homosexual activity per se should be considered "more dangerous" to your health than heterosexual activity".

 

----------

 

ANSWER:

 

Compare the way God designed [or, for the purposes of this board, let us say how science has discovered] the linings of vagina - for specific purposes - together with the inbuilt capacity for the vagina to be lubricated when the woman is in a state of sexual arousal (all of this pre-programmed into our DNA), with what we know from science about lining [singular] of the anal canal.

 

Which was designed with just one specific purpose in mind

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sayonara]

sayonara wrote:

 

"There is no scientific reason why homosexual activity per se should be considered "more dangerous" to your health than heterosexual activity".

 

----------

 

ANSWER:

 

Compare the way God designed [or, for the purposes of this board, let us say how science has discovered] the linings of vagina - for specific purposes - together with the inbuilt capacity for the vagina to be lubricated when the woman is in a state of sexual arousal (all of this pre-programmed into our DNA), with what we know from science about lining [singular] of the anal canal.

 

Which was designed with just one specific purpose in mind

 

----------------

 

That has nothing to do with how "dangerous" sexual behaviours are.

 

Please respond to my post as if you were interested in discussing the thread topic, instead of using it as a platform for badly disguised gay bashing.