Thread: How do you talk to someone like this?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While the identity stuff is interesting and perhaps does to a large degree explain folk like dayturner, who'll toss away any resemblance to objectivity and reason to fit his particular sky-god views, I think it's far too dichotomous. Surely religions, religious folks and secular folks often find ways to either compartmentalize their worldviews or even adopt them. I've known dozens of atheist scientist that still go through the motions of being religious to connect to their family, the sense of community, or give their children an "easier" moral grounding. Christianity is full of customs from other religious cultures that were integrated into their own...it's also adapted dramatically since the enlightenment the result being a much more subtle and peaceful form than it was most of its history.

I agree with this, for the most part. The dichotomy is in the healthy version . A single condition of a person should not decide (to a large extent) other conditions.
That isn't recognised equally in all religions or other identities.

The harmful version is when there is suggestion that the identity does define the person. And that is true in many cases, not just in religion.
Identity politics is a good example.

People should remember that God (insert whatever variety you like) is simply not interested in the truth. "He" has proved this over and over again.

If you think Fish became human beings, you're wrong. Quite the opposite, actually - Humans split from sharks on the evolutionary tree ~400m years ago (look up : "Where we Split from Sharks - google search") I think a fundamental aspect you're missing here is that it didn't go (Microbes happened, some microbes stayed microbes; population of special microbes evolved into water bugs, some stayed water bugs, some special water bugs became fish, some stayed fish, others became landwalkers and so on...)
Fish split into two groups from water bugs: Bone skeletons and cartilaginous skeletons (so that makes two species evolve from one common ancestor) and then the skeleton bone fish evolved into species on land, cartilaginous fish evolved into sea rays, sharks, and all the aquatic species we see today.

You're clinging to something arbitrarily irrelevant and stupid, my guy.

And by saying "your people" you imply creationists aren't scientists. Are you really blind to the shades of grey?

Originally Posted by QuinnMcChief

And by saying "your people" you imply creationists aren't scientists.

While it's true that some creationists may have been (or, in rare cases, still are) practising scientists it's also a fact that if they're doing "creationism" then they're not doing science.
I.e. a physicist may still be a scientist providing he/ she ignores creationism altogether.