Pointed out to me? Pardon, but I hardly need instruction on such a point. (Although many a creationist here does.)
Just a few messages upthread, and repeatedly in this thread, I've pointed out that accepting a Doctrine of Creation, and therefore being a "creationist," is a characteristic of (serious) monotheists generally. In other threads I've pointed out that most evolutionists are creationists (although obviously not antievolutionary creationists). Even though the intended meaning should generally be understood in these threads, I nevertheless often use distinguishing terminology like "antievolutionary creationist" or "antievolution activist" so as not to taint or limit the term "creationism" or "creationist" with a too particular, narrow or anti-scientific a denotation.
There’s either the naturalistic view, or creation
Um, no. There are many who accept both naturalism (at least "operational" naturalism, i.e. naturalism adopted for the limited purpose of "doing science") and creationism.
and multitudes of people believe in creation without being terrorists
Well, DUH!
The point you’re making is to try to equate creation with Islamic terrorists. *If you believe in creation, you’re no better than an Islamic terrorist*.
First betty boop, then hosepipe and now you. I don't know if this is some kind of projection, weired and unnecessary defensiveness, or just mass insanity. But it's really, really, really bizarre.
I didn't ever, anywhere, say or suggest that just Islamists, or only Islamists, or particularly Islamists, or especially Islamists are creationists. In fact I said that ALL Muslims, and ALL Christians, and ALL monotheists (who follow through to the extent of accepting a monotheistic doctrine of creationism) are "creationists". I said dumb and smart Muslims, and dumb and smart Christians (and even the occasional non-religious "philosophical theist") are creationists.
Heck, it was someone else who started all this. I just responded -- in genuine amazement -- to betty boop's comment in #132:
Why on earth do you suppose the Islamofascists are "creationists?" Where is your evidence for this?
And bb was responding to -YYZ- who, in #17, only made an incidental point in way of arguing against stereotyping and pigeonholing creationists:
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
Please try to put your persecution complex aside long enough to read the above statement C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. Anyone who doesn't INSIST on being insulted will recognize that -YYZ- is saying that creationism should NOT be considered a term of opprobrium (just because some bad people happen to be creationists) just evolution should not be so considered (just because some bad people happen to be evolutionists).
But of course, just as you have with me, betty boop immediately missed the point, and indeed got it exactly backwards:
It seems you regard "creationist" and "creationism" as terms of opprobrium that can be applied willy-nilly to people you dislike.
Well, you know what, if people insist on being offended, and will turn your statements around 180 degrees in order to play the roll of drama queen cum martyr, what you gonna do? I suppose just shake your head in slightly bemused disbelief.
And you just wouldn't consider that the problem isn't with the three of us, now would you? I hadn't seen those posts when I posted mine. I was rather surprised to see them after I hit the post button.
If your point wasn't to paint creationists as irrational, murdering, Islamic terrorists, then why constantly use them as an example of what a creationist is? Why harp on that?
You could have easily used people like the Amish, Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Jesus, Himself. Could we not paint creationists in the light of people who show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and made the world a better place to live?
Heck, even Newton and Einstein believed that there was enough evidence to point to a creator. Are you going to paint them as Islamic terrorists, too?
It also seems to be a characteristic of Platonic thought. See the Myth of the Demiurge (in Timaeus), where he "persuades" the Chora [pure nothingness, yet at the same time pure potentiality, before the Demiurge gets there to provide a "guide to the system," via peithos, persuasion. I.e., the Demiurge leaves the system "free," but points it in the direction of divine beauty and truth. He is engaging the Chora "on a divine mission," so to speak...]. From his activity, the "becoming things" that make our Cosmos are produced.
I do not think anyone has ever supposed that Plato was a "monotheist," at least not in the modern sense of that word. He continued to pay his respects to the cultic gods of his beloved polis, Athens; though it is sure he felt the "tugs" and "pulls" of the divinity, the "One God" Beyond the Cosmos [methinks the "Unknown God" of Acts], in his own psychic life on a regular personal basis....
Then again, as Alamo-Girl astutely noted earlier today, Panspermia Theory -- the theory that biological life was seeded here on Earth by "space aliens" -- is a creation myth also.
We've got all kinds of "creation" theories/myths going on out there in human Reality (abiogenesis would be one); and this sort of thing has been going on as long as human beings have; or at least, from the very beginning of humanly recorded time (history).
And so you propose to classify them all according to the same system that you propose as suitable for Islamofascists?
Why would you want to do that? It seems so unreasonable to me.... FWIW.