Wow, this is the definition of ignorance

[The_vagabond7]

Slimebeast said:

The_vagabond7 said:

Slimebeast said:

The_vagabond7 said:

 

I'm not anti-christian. I would agree that there are fundementalists in all groups. But the US has a glut of religious fundementalists. And if you notice in my post I didn't say "Christianity is aging in modern society." I said Fundementalism is. So obviously I'm talking about fundementalists. And answers in genesis is daft, it is a sespool of ignorance. That's not mean, that's true. People like Kirk Cameron and ray comfort are laughing stocks to everyone except those that eat it up in earnest. Ray Comforts famous "Banana's are from god" bit could just as easily be a poe's law video.

 

Nearly half of the US thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, the majority of the US doesn't believe in evolution. When it comes to religious fundementalism the US is quickly becoming a joke among an increasingly liberal (religiously) world. The rest of the world is leaving biblical literalism behind as the ignorance and superstitions that it is. But America is desperately clinging onto them to the point that it is both disturbing and laughable.

 

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to make it personal, and say that psychologically speaking I cannot have a voice about the state of religion in the US. When I say I was a zealot, I was still more liberal than alot of the US (I wasn't a young earth creationist). My critisisms are perfectly valid, and your ad hominem doesn't some how make answers in genesis a thoughtful and scientific website.

They're not that dumb as u say, not even AiG (well, clearly not them because they're a lot higher than average IQ and knowledge compared to the average Christian person in the world). U are comparing them to this video in the OP? Show me something outside the banana example (which I think is misunderstood, misrepresented or he made it with a blink in his eye, or a mix sort of).

So what if half of US thinks the earth is 6000 years old? People below average IQ can't judge these facts anyway, they almost completely have to take the issue about evolution vs creation by blind faith on higher authority.

Try to discuss evolution/science/religion with an average IQ 99 or lower person of any faith or unfaith, and you'll find it's completely meaningless simply because they lack intelligence and you'll find that their views are based on higher authority not their own analysis.

In short, the topic about evolution-creation is not a topic for dummies, and while I agree the US is laughing stock in the world already due to the high proportion of creationists, most people who mock them lack the skills themselves to brain-crunch any science, they just happen to have been brain-washed with the mainstream scientific theory.

1. ...so....wait...did you just say that they aren't as dumb as I claim, then say that the majority of the US is of below average intelligence, and that most people's religious beliefs stem from them being too stupid to reason? I'm confused here because on one hand you acknowledge that the US is a laughing stock because of the abundance of creationists, and then on the other hand claim that the creationists aren't as stupid as I think, and then on some third hand claim that most of them believe that way because of their own ignorance. I am confuzzled.

2. And yes, AiG is that stupid. Just because they discuss how carbon dating works doesn't mean they aren't grossly misapplying it to show that the earth is 6000 years old. Using big words doesn't a make for a smart person if they can't use any of the big words right.

1. Yes, it got a lil confusing there. Im running two arguments - first, you are comparing a fairly complicated and intellect-demanding topic such as evolution/creation, to the topic of this thread and the video in the OP, which portrays extreme ignorance which I instantly called fake - a level of ignorance that's rare (thread is even named to 'definition of ignorance'). Second, Im objecting that youre taking the high proportion of creationists in the US as evidence of ignorance being widespread (again, remember the OP - the ignorance level shown there about Indians not being Asians, and these girls telling they can't be friends etc) - when in fact it demands a fairly high IQ to be able to make an educated stand on the issue to begin with. So in reality, you're thinking the masses are ignorant too - because most of them are evolutionists only by faith thanks to higher authority, not thanks to their intellect.

2. In that case the majority of people are stupid (which I don't disagree with, in fact), because being able to even discuss carbon dating on the level that AiG does, demands a higher than average IQ, even if they happen to be mostly wrong. A person can be fairly, or even highly intelligent, but be wrong about something.

 

I can see what you're saying and agree to an extent. Believing evolution doesn't make you educated or smart. You can take that on faith as much as anything. But believing as fundementalist christians do, absolutely makes you ignorant. There is no way to reconcile the earth being 6000 years old, and Noah's flood as a literal historical event and not being ignorant. The two do not mix. Also, I would posit that the level of ignorance in this video is not in anyway rare. Come to Kentucky and visit a diner and have a discussion with the average person here. The ignorance in this video is not far off base. The education levels in rural kentucky are woefully low. Furthermore asserting that the earth is older than 6000 years old is not some esoteric topic that would be hard for the layman to crack. And yet almost half the US believes it to be true.

Having information isn't the same as intelligence. Anyone can have knowledge at their disposal. But being able to understand the information, reason on it and apply it correctly is what makes a person intelligent. Which is why I say AiG is so daft. An article on carbon dating may have lots of information on carbon dating, but the way they use that information is so grossly ignorant that it cannot be called "smart" at all. It's like reading the book "Evolution or Creation" (a jehovah's witness book), which has lots of "information" about various scientific theories. But their understanding, and application of said information is so far off base no one in their right mind could call it a smart book. It's not a matter of being right or wrong, a smart person can of course be wrong. It's a matter of actually comprehending the material sitting before you, and just showing it and making egregiously bad assertions based on it.