h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Read..actually READ what Hoo said and also the reply I put afterwards.

The point is that Creationists peddle a false vision of what science shows about the creation of the universe and perverts what science has shown to be true to make people, kids especially who are easier to fool, into believing this creationist house of cards even though any rational adult would say that creationism is twaddle and wrong. Ther a numerous cases where kids have been indoctrinated with this stuff and either never realise it OR do realise it is all rubbish and the impact that what they have been told about life the universe etc is just sleight of hand trickery to fit the world into what it says in a 2000year oldish book totally screws them up when they have to re-adjust to normality.

Analogy with paedophiles: they too create a view of the world for kids that is incorrect so that they can be manipulated into thinking things and doing things that to any rational adult is wrong.

The analogy of the process and the mental out-come NOT THE ACT ITSELF that is being compared here.

The yiksed post said exactly this. It did not say that creationist are paedophiles at all NOR is this post here so please do NOT yikes it as I HAVE NOT MADE THAT COMPARISON. It is merely that the analogy is the starkest easiest one to get across - if you think about what is actually being said rather than just reacting on a purely emotional level.

I see that kind of argument as indulging a sophistry. I have NO truck with Creationism but I would in no way deem its effects to be anywhere near as damaging as child abuse. Mods victims of child abuse would justifiably get angry, if it were implied that what they went through was no worse than a Creationist indoctrination.

Simulpost.
"Read..actually READ what Hoo said and also the reply I put afterwards."

I read it. I disagree with it. It's hyperbolic bollocks. I was taught at school that Heaven and Earth were created by God. When I was old enough to make uop my own mind about it I rejected it. I was also emotionally abused as a child. The effects of this abuse are still with me now and may well be with me until I die. DONT tell me that Creationism is a form of abuse because, believe me, it ain't.

Two more things:

1. "To be called as bad as a child-rapist simply because I believe in Genesis is an insult beyond description."

Yes, it would be, wouldn't it, if that was in fact what I had said. I see you are a typical Christian (in my experience on this site), in that you've yikesed my original post, and got it hidden, and are now lying about what I said in it. (Do they teach this technique in Sunday school or something, because a LOT of Christians do it?)

I did NOT say that someone who believes in Genesis is as bad as a child-rapist. In fact, in the posting that was hidden, I was very, very specific that all adults have the absolute right to believe in Genesis, just as they have the right to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. And if you keep your belief to yourself, then I can respect that. I consider it rather stupid, but then I have no doubt that many people would consider some of the things *I* think rather stupid, so that's nothing to get upset about.

What I SAID was quite different. What I said was that those creationists who seek to impose their belief on impressionable children are the contemptible ones, the ones I equate to paedophiles, because they are corrupting children intellectually and potentially stunting their future educational development by expecting them to believe the writings of a middle-eastern desert-dwelling community of three millenia ago are somehow relevant to modern science. I strongly believe that teaching that stuff in science classes IS child abuse, and should be treated as such.

2. az, dear, I think you've missed the point. The entry hasn't "disappeaed" - it merely contains every scrap of scientific evidence available that supports the Biblical account of creation - i.e. f**k all. It's a sort of a joke...

H.

"DONT tell me that Creationism is a form of abuse because, believe me, it ain't."

Of course not, Bob Hopeless, my mistake. You're right, of course - there's only ONE form of abuse in the world: the kind YOU suffered. Nothing else is as bad, nothing else is like it, nothing else can be compared to it, and nobody else could possibly understand.

Thank you for your objective comments.

H.

<>

I'm very sorry to hear that BH. I was also emotionally abused as a child, as well as physically and sexually abused - by two parents brought up with very strict Catholic doctrine. Now I'm not saying this is why they ended up being abusive, except that my mother was sent to an orphanage run by Catholic nuns when she was five and my father often talked about being beaten - on almost a daily basis - by the Catholic nuns that ran his school.

Meanwhile, unlike yourself, I did feel myself damaged by being raised (so to speak) as a Catholic. As a small child I went to bed with nightmares about burning in hell because I had been told by the priests that I was BAD and a SINNER.

Like yourself, I also rejected the church when I got old enough to do so. But the fears remained for many many years. I mean, come off it - it *is* abusive to tell small children they are *sinners* who are going to BURN, when all they are doing is being normal kids.

F**king nuns, man. They still give me the shivers when I see them . . .


az

Do you know something? I'm a Darwinist through and through, but I would much rather associate myself with a Creationist that this sort of ranting scientistic zealotry. Just because it happens to be the correct way of viewing the world doesn't give others the right to bully and demonise those who don't agree with it. I could probably find a lot more common humanity in Creationists than people like you could. It takes an awful lot to make me feel sympathetic towards a Creationist, but you, Hoo, have managed it.

<>

Oops . . .

az

"bully and demonise"

I've asked Good_News five desperately simple questions that someone who claims the knowledge he does should be able to answer off the top of his head in less than thirty minutes. He's declined to answer. I have drawn a conclusion from that failure. I hardly see that as bullying.

I have also carefully laid out precisely why I see paedophiles and militant creationists as analogous. I'm not "demonising" creationists - top marks for picking a wonderfully ironic word, by the way, really, very funny indeed - DEMONS!!! - I'm stating logical reasons why their activities could be seen as unacceptable.

I say again - if you disagree with my analogy, or think my logic is unsound or invalid, ARGUE WITH IT. That you have chosen not to, that you have merely called me names instead, speaks volumes about how sure YOU are of your position.

And like I said - thanks for your objective comments.

H.

and multiple

s

I've told you why: I don't think it does anywhere near as much damage, and neither does the rest of society, which is why we lock up child abusers and not creationists. You SAID that you thought that Creationists were as bad as paedophiles, which is is an infallamtory statement if ever I read one.

Now, if this is the way you conduct yourself with total strangers, who have never done *anything* to hurt you save raise some idelogically objectionable view (and God knows there are plenty of those with which we can all take exception on a daily basis), all I can say is that I pity *your* children. I think that your tone in this conversation speaks volumes about the kind of person who are, and I hope to God I never meet you, or anyone like you.

Ho ho ho, Glad I found this thread. Reading Good News's "Standar responses to evolutionist trolls" has had me in stiches for the last 5 mins.

Ahhh proper side hurtingly funny....

hi BH,

What do you think of my post in reply to you? Getting defensive with Hoo probably won't get you (or anyone here) anywhere. Just wondering if you thought my take on 'religious abuse' was valid.


az

<<>>

I am amazed and yet also sickened that I have to explain the difference between a person who rapes children and a Creationist. You might as well compare a Jew or a Buddhist to a paedophile and ask what the difference is.

In case you don't know, paedophiles (except celibate ones) go about raping children (i.e. making them have sex against their will). They don't care about the children but just want to have pleasure. They seem to get delight out of making children suffer or making them do things that children should not do. They are dangerous to people and WILL destory the lives of people. They are also either born that way or have had some sort of mental problem when growing up. You cannot read a book or look at evidence and turn into a child rapist.

A Creationist on the other hand, believes that Genesis is accurate. They object to children being taught evolution as a fact as they believe (as do many scientists) that it is not a proven fact. They do not abuse children in any physical or sexual way. Neither do they abuse them in any mental way (not believing in evolution will not turn you into a killer or a madman). Creationists are also not born Creationists and will not turn into Creationists if they are abused as children. Rather, they either believe the Bible or have not found enough evidence that evolution is a proven fact. A person can read a book or look at evidence and turn into a Creationist.

And lastly, it is utter foolishness to compare a person who holds a particular view about the origins of life (which no one can prove) to a person who is sexually attracted to children. The two have nothing in common. It is like comparing a bestialist to a scientist who believes life came here from an astroid.


I am sure most people are sickened by your post and rightfully so. You obviously have had no experience with victims of child abuse (or met many creationists) or you would never make a disgusting comment like that.

<<>>

So are you going to apologise for your comment which stated that Creationists can be compared to paedophiles?

<> (GN)

My take was that Hoo wasn't saying the 'acts' were the same but that the results of experiencing either could be similar.

Saying they were both abusive to children.

At least, that seemed quite clear to me.


az

"I've told you why: I don't think it does anywhere near as much damage"

You thus admit that it DOES do damage. I thought you were supposed to be explaining why I'm wrong, not admitting that I'm right? Not very good at this, are you?

Plus, see above post on why *your* pain is so very much more important and valid than anyone else's.

"and neither does the rest of society, which is why we lock up child abusers and not creationists."

That is not the reason we don't lock up creationists. We don't lock up creationists because
1. the damage they do (that you've admitted yourself that they do) is so difficult to recognise and quantify
2. the majority of people like me actually don't actually CARE about the damage they do - so a few Christians get a duff education and are intellectually stunted as a result, so what? Good, in fact, it'll keep them out of important jobs with any luck.
3. the laws get made by politicians who know full well that the majority of the people in this country are superstitious, and they know they only way they'll get elected is by pandering to that superstition. Perfect example: the proposed law on incitement to religious hatred. Yes, that's right people, we're going to make it an offence to criticise someone's superstitions of choice. That's what "society" thinks.

"You SAID that you thought that Creationists were as bad as paedophiles, which is is an infallamtory statement if ever I read one."

Inflammatory, perhaps. And I still don't see you poking any holes in my logic, just pointing out that you think it's a matter of degree. Which is also what I think.

"all I can say is that I pity *your* children."

I have no children. I shall have no children. But I care what happens to other people's children, because they will be the society I grow old in, and I'd rather they were smart than stupid.

"I think that your tone in this conversation speaks volumes about the kind of person who are, and I hope to God I never meet you, or anyone like you"

Trust me, Bob, you've very unlikely ever to meet anyone like me.

H.

Re: post 35:

Good_News, I have two points:

1. You have plenty of time to post your self-righteous complaints, yet you still seem curiously reticent on the subject of the five simple questions I've asked you. Will you in fact be bothering to answer them, or can I safely write you off as another parrot?

2. Have you ever heard of something we doctors call "sarcasm"? Because that's what the "Nothing else is as bad" post was. I can point you to an online dictionary, if you'd like.

And no, I shall not be apologising, because despite your patronisingly complete descriptions, you've done nothing whatever to rebut my observations of the analogies between militant creationism and paedophilia.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you persist in refusing to understand - I have no problem with you believing whatever you like. It is when you find yourself incapable of keeping your little fantasies to yourself, and forcing them on innocent children, that I find you and others like you reprehensible. If you still cannot see the parallels, I'm afraid I can't help you.

H.

Oh, and

"You obviously have had no experience with victims of child abuse (or met many creationists)"

Wrong, on both counts. Get used to being wrong, Good_News, you seem to be good at it.

H.

<>(Hoo)


<>(Hoo)

Explain or have you just gone off on one again and thought better of it?

You think that telling kids stuff is as bad as having sex with children, scarring them physically, mentally and emotionally? or don't you? Huh?

Alex.