I started reading The Greatest Show On Earth last night and one thing Dawkins says in the first chapter is that:
I shall be using the name “history-deniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs. (7)
I wonder if that term hurts Dawkins’ goal more than it helps it.
If creationists called us “history-deniers” because we denied what they believe to be the clear attestation of history (i.e., that there was a global flood & the earth is only 6,000 years old), we would laugh and possibly be offended. And won’t they have the same reaction?
Do you think labeling creationists with that term makes them more likely to consider what Dawkins has to say about evolution, or less?
Update: Some have questioned whether this book is aimed at creationists. According to Dawkins, it is: “The history-deniers themselves are among those that I am trying to reach in this book.” (8)
Shawn Abbott: I have already gave several examples of why Christianity is different you just dont seem... 
Lessica: If God was really going for clarity, he would have waited for the invention of Lojban. He must have... 
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
125 Comments
My general feeling is that calling something other than its generic label generally doesn’t help unless its for a particular salient point and is restricted to that context. The biggest problem with Dawkins’ “history-deniers” is that denying history is not really the major problem with creationism, but rather more of a stupid by-product. The major problem is the denial of and attack upon science as a dominant epistemological and practical mode for the society and for individuals.
I think that labeling creationists anything that can be viewed as negative is a bad idea.
If we cant use a negative label then we cant call them “Creationists” – Dakins is correct that these are people who literally deny history. Let’s not shield them from the comparison with his imaginary Rome-deniers
How many creationists will actually read the book? Do you think it is really aimed at them?
How many creationists will actually read the book? Do you think it is really aimed at them?
That’s hardly the point. The jokes you share with friends come much closer to how you think or end up thinking than the ones you tell to complete strangers. It leads to a very justifiable behind-closed-doors-this-is-how-they-really-view-you-(those-condescending-jerks) effect: A brilliant way to discourage a questioning creationist from *ever* approaching a more scientifically-oriented person.
Dawkins says it is aimed at creationists, so yes, I’d say it is aimed at creationists:
“The history-deniers themselves are among those that I am trying to reach in this book.” (8)
Dawkins clarifies his audience a bit in this interview:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/creationists-take-note-evidence-is-evidence/article1308724/
“But I think a book like mine is probably best aimed at people who are not willfully ignorant but just pardonably ignorant, as we all are of many things. It’s no sin. If people who simply don’t know about the evidence are exposed to it, they will understand it and accept it.” – Dawkins
They’re creationists, for Christ’s sake. Ignorance of reality is the basis of their belief system. They don’t consider anything anyone has to say if it does not agree with their belief system, regardless of the terminology used.
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein
Seconded!
WTF!
These people glory in their ignorance and celebrate their irrationality, Daniel. Logic, facts and evidence are anathema to them!
It’s blatantly obvious they don’t even read, much less understand their biblical BS. Atheists know the bible better than most xtrians, for chrissakes!
The bible doesn’t stand up to the merest scrutiny and these people fervently close their eyes and ears when you point out the absurdity of religious “thought” and scripture!
Why would you think they’d even read the “evil” Dawkins’ book? Or have a rational discussion about it?
I know fundies who have read The God Delusion. And when I was a creationist, I read ~3/4 of the “Great Books of Western History” collection. I took classes in logic and rhetoric. I wouldn’t say I was stupid. I was misguided and deluded.
I didn’t say stupid. OK, I probably meant it. Willfully ignorant then? How is that productive?
I struggle that we would niggle over something as innocuous as “history denial”.
Makes us seem like a bunch of poosies, instead of, you know, wielding a 2×4 between the eyes, like a mule, just to get their attention? Rhetorically speaking of course…;-)
…over something as innocuous as “history denial”.
Well, and Daniel pointed out the other gaping flaw with the terminology: there are many subsections to history, and most people don’t automatically think “natural history” when someone says “history”. Someone can read plenty of history and still be a creationist/ I bet you anything there is at least one credentialed history professor at an accredited institution who is a creationist. The label “history-denier” would in that context be the height of stupidity, and place the labeler in the position of being easily dismissible.
Yeah it seems like “evolution denier” would be more accurate and less offensive.
Aren’t they also denying geology?
Only certain parts. :)
“reality challenged”?
Nah. They have no problem heuristically applying basic causation to the world, and can generally distinguish between waking life and dream- or drug-induced states.
———–
If one *has* to come up with a nasty nickname for creationists, perhaps something that attacks their explanatory mechanism (i.e. “a wizard did it”) would be most effective. After all, that is the real battleground for convincing bystanders that creationists are generally not to be taken seriously. After all, what creationists are in essence asserting is that they believe in magic. Extra special, warm and fuzzy, divine hocus pocus. Why are there mountain ranges? A wizard did it. Why do humans have tailbones? A wizard did it. Why do snakes have no legs? You get the idea. That is what is pristinely mockable about their idiocy.
Daniel Florian wrote:
“Yeah it seems like “evolution denier” would be more accurate and less offensive.”
I get the feeling that when you wrote that, you are implying it would be wrong to label creationists as “history deniers” simply because it offends them. I hope that isn’t what you’re saying.
“and”
Religious history maybe.
Or we could just cut to the chase and call them out as the superstitious bigots they are.
If you say a wizard did it, they’ll get all misty eyed and “Ruby Slippers” on you and completely miss the point.
You’re giving them much too much credit, nope. These are NOT people who are big on nuance. They won’t even grok that they’ve been mocked.
They are not the target. The *audience* is the target. Ignorant people will in all likelihood go right on being ignorant. The point is to convince the bystander to listen to you and not to the idiot.
“Why would you think they’d even read the “evil” Dawkins’ book? Or have a rational discussion about it?”
For the most part, this. Not that Christians don’t discuss Dawkins, because they do, but because a) most Christians are not really prepared to accept many of Dawkins’ ideas, and b) because Christians are definitely not Dawkins’ primary audience. Dawkins quite literally preaches to the choir. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, you can get a lot accomplished that way if you do it right, but I think it is almost certainly the case that Dawkins doesn’t normally reach out to Christians.
Name-calling is always bad. It’s the time-honored, fast and dirty way to demonize outsiders and solidify your own community, but it’s bad. I got my panties in a twist just from being labeled a “secular hedonist” by a local pol, who thinks he is really clever to have thought that up. We “secular hedonists” are trying to hijack the country [no doubt by democratic election], he says. I can see creationists reacting just as strongly to something as equally bland as “history deniers.” Oh, yes, very clever and all, but productive?
Always take the High Road.
Marfita wrote:
“Name-calling is always bad. It’s the time-honored, fast and dirty way to demonize outsiders and solidify your own community, but it’s bad. I got my panties in a twist just from being labeled a “secular hedonist” by a local pol, who thinks he is really clever to have thought that up. We “secular hedonists” are trying to hijack the country [no doubt by democratic election], he says. I can see creationists reacting just as strongly to something as equally bland as “history deniers.” Oh, yes, very clever and all, but productive?
“Always take the High Road.”
But why is it exactly bad? Why should Richard Dawkins avoid labeling creationists as “history deniers?” Simply because it offends them?
But why is it exactly bad?
When people live in a society together, they need some ability to communicate so as to resolve differences. One of the best ways to do this is when people can participate in a rational discourse of competing ideas. The public understanding of many truths depends critically on the ability of people to consider evidence and the intersection of complicated concepts.
When people eschew those methods for name-calling, they weaken the presumption that these methods are preferable. Thus, less people attempt to participate in the discourse, or of they do, adopt similar name-calling tactics. The ability for the discourse to produce consensus lessens, and people’s confidence in the truth-demonstrating potential of social interaction likewise is diminished.
In short, name-calling and similar tactics eventually turns everyone into cynics, and stupid ones at that.
Why should Richard Dawkins avoid labeling creationists as “history deniers?
In addition to the above reasons, it is also on a practical level a very poor insult. By failing in general to target the actually objectionable quality of creationism, it sounds trite. By failing to delineate what is meant by history, it sounds confusing. By being applied to people who in some part are otherwise competent at historical topics, it sound absurd. In any case, it sounds petty.
“Dawkins quite literally preaches to the choir.”
One of Dawkins books was instrumental in my first explorations of what I didn’t realize at the time was a growing atheism. He does more than preach to the choir.
The fact that people who need it will ignore information is not a reason not to put the information out there. Every now and then, someone picks it up and it’s life changing. Also, Dawkins style does not work for those who demand that their beliefs be treated with kid gloves, but fortunately I am not one of those people.
I, too, began my road to reality with God Delusion and have never looked back; he made me think and laugh and conclude, “By golly, there is NO damned reason to believe this” and I absolutely danced with freedom.
I am reading the book too, and thoroughly enjoying it.
I think that, taken out of context, the term ‘history-denier’ might sound confrontational and I agree with you that, depending on what you believe to be history, it could be considered an offensive term whichever side used it.
But Dawkins creates the term as a form of short-hand to describe people (such as holocaust-deniers and, to emphasise his point by descending to the ludicrous, Roman Empire-deniers) who are unwilling to even look at the evidence before pronouncing their opinions. That’s all it is – a shorthand term to (accurately) describe a particular kind of character trait.
The whole book is, if nothing else, all about ‘looking at the evidence’ and calling those who deny its existence ‘history-deniers’ seems not just appropriate but suitably, even academically, accurate.
In answer to your question; I think it helps Dawkins’ cause. Not for the 95% of religionists who won’t read it anyway, but for the 5% who will be sufficiently provoked by terminology like ‘history-denier’ to look, perhaps for the first time, at the evidence.
Using labels like that only hurts the cause, if more diplomatic approaches — and watching out for the feelings of Creationists — could work. I don’t think it can, though. We aren’t dealing with people who can be negotiated with, cajoled, or otherwise encouraged to see any value in the concept of evolution.
It is true that name-calling is, generally, not ethical. However, diplomacy has been tried, and to date, has proven fruitless. If treating Creationists gently and carefully avoiding offending them hasn’t done any good … and especially if the message of evolution has been rebuffed in vicious form, as has happened … then I’d say the door has been opened for a little name-calling in return.
Maybe the lesson for Creationists who may be offended by being called “history-deniers,” is that maybe they ought also to stop being so vicious in their response to evolution? Just a thought.
Ah, yes! The ‘framing’ question arises again. It is quite interesting, from a psychological and sociological point of view, how a small, yet significant percentage of the populations of both theists and atheists articulate the ‘insult and beat them over the head’ approach to the ideational conversion of others. Neither subpopulation, conservative theists or new atheists, seems to be aware that they are using similar psychosocial approaches. They frame their issues by using confrontation, belittlement and incitment to anger. Neither side paying much attention to the psychological and sociological literature which (generally) indicates that a personally accepting, rational and evidence based approach to be more productive in obtaining the desired result.
Psychologists frequently label such behavior (ignoring well established rational or scientific findings) as the ’suspension of disbelief.’ This poorly understood human capacity is similar to losing yourself in a book or movie that your rational mind knows to be not true, but that you recieve intense pleasure from submitting to nonetheless.
Yes, even the most intelligent of our species consistently demonstrates the limitations of our brain’s evolution.
Neither subpopulation, conservative theists or new atheists, seems to be aware that they are using similar psychosocial approaches.
Actually, I’m pretty sure they’re aware.
I happen to think that name-calling can be both justified and beneficial. We have to recognize that the “other side” is excellent at abusing our modern sound-bite culture with their short, punching phrases like “only a theory” or “teach both sides” or “academic freedom”. I think we do need to counter this with something similar.
I’ve encountered several reasonably intelligent people (both religious and non-religious) who were under the misapprehension that ideas like Intelligent Design actually had merit and that it was seriously being considered by scientists. These are people who have never seriously looked into the issues and probably don’t really care too much either. But they still play an important role in forming the public opinion. Moreover, these people do not like to be seen as stupid or uninformed. If we can get the message across to them that ideas like Intelligent Design are completely moronic, they will be more likely to reject them.
I’ve encountered several reasonably intelligent people (both religious and non-religious) who were under the misapprehension that ideas like Intelligent Design actually had merit and that it was seriously being considered by scientists.
I really doubt that calling the proponents of such notions names will convince bystanders of the idiocy of the creationist position.
Yet it works. Like we’ve discussed before, ridicule can actually be remarkably effective.
Occasionally. Nearly everything works occasionally. That doesn’t make it the best approach.
So… you do think it will convince some bystanders some of the time. Thanks for correcting yourself.
I’ve never asserted otherwise, so can it with the “thank you for correcting yourself” nonsense. I maintain that it is a suboptimal approach that has many other negative externalities. In all probability, for every one it convinces, it will turn more than one other person away. You tell me, if a persuasive approach decisively lost two people for every person it decisively won, would you consider it effective?
So you “really doubt” that calling people names will convince bystanders, and you also accept that it works sometimes, and those two opinions do not contradict each other in your mind at all.
This is not some philosophy class or debate team. You do not earn points for defending a position you don’t actually believe in. Talking out of both sides of your mouth can only decrease your credibility.
So you “really doubt” that calling people names will convince bystanders, and you also accept that it works sometimes, and those two opinions do not contradict each other in your mind at all.
They don’t contradict each other. One is true when applied globally, the other true when applied in individual cases. A brick is solid enough to crush a man’s head, and yet at the atomic level is mostly empty space. A neuron on its own is a cell with mildly interesting electrochemical properties; put a hundred billion or so together in the right configuration and you get a brain, whose emergent properties are a great deal more significant. Killing a terrorist by bombing his hideout may prevent him from pursuing future terrorism, but may increase terrorism overall by pissing off people who found the bombing brutal or unnecessary.
Likewise, adopting an obnoxious, aggressive, and insulting stance when trying to persuade people may have individual successes, but the strategy on the whole will over the long-term produce more people opposed to your position than in agreement with it.
This is not some philosophy class or debate team.
No kidding.
You do not earn points for defending a position you don’t actually believe in.
I didn’t.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth can only decrease your credibility.
I didn’t.
Why is something this simple so hard for you to admit to?
And then when confronted you have to admit that in fact it can convince them, and when confronted about that contradiction you still can’t admit any error and wander off into the land of semantic games and talking out of both sides of your mouth again.
Why can’t you just say that your problem with that approach is simply that you don’t like it? Its not a matter of effectiveness, you just don’t like it and spend all these words rationalizing it instead of saying that it is your own personal opinion.
Why is something this simple so hard for you to admit to?
Because what you are asserting is flatly wrong.
Let’s say there’s an audience of three people who are currently undecided about creationism, and there are many strategies available to convince them that creationism is wrong and should not be given credence.
A theoretically optimum strategy would increase three peoples’ sense of creationism’s wrongness, leave zero people undecided, and decrease zero peoples’ sense of creationism’s wrongness.
The least optimum strategy would increase zero peoples’ sense of creationism’s wrongness, leave zero people undecided, and decrease three peoples’ sense of creationism’s wrongness.
I personally believe that the strategy of mockery has a likely outcome (to be insanely optimistic) of: increase one person’s sense of creationism’s wrongness, leave zero people undecided, and decrease two peoples’ sense of creationism’s wrongness.
I recognize that as a failing strategy. You are trying to argue that since it does generate that one person who increases his belief in creationism’s wrongness, I am being inconsistent in saying that it is unconvincing. To which I can only think of cliches about forests and trees.
And that’s not even to get into some of the negative externalities of the approach, which I think are generally damaging. What if the approach lowers every audience member’s perception of the *importance* of the issue of creationism being wrong (as aggressive tactics tend to, in general, lessen people’s sensitivity in all sorts of messy ways)? What if people concede your point but because they think of you as a jerk, avoid engaging with you on other issues you find important (thus damaging your long-term effectiveness as a persuader)? What if adopting aggressive tactics causes an escalation of tactics with your creationist counterpart? All three are reasonable lateral effects to expect from such an approach.
In sum, it is *easy* to concede that occasionally a jerk convinces individuals and still maintain absolutely consistently that it is not a winning strategy for persuasion, for convincing bystanders of the rightness of your contentions.
There is no way you’ll convince him to stop being such a jerk.
There is no way you’ll convince him to stop being such a jerk.
Probably not, but I can make a try for the audience. :)
Nice to know that he spreads the love around, doesn’t discriminate, loves me no less than his own, lol.
Thanks ‘nope, you can say it much better than my attempts in the past :-)
Thomas Jefferson: ‘Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
I say keep up the good work Dawkins!
Amen! With much irony intended.
yup.
My sentiments exactly. I can understand the point of view that we don’t want to offend or alienate these people before we kick a ball, but they are never going to play the game anyway. Certainly not with any level of intellectual honesty. Reaching out to a Creationist in a book about evolution is about as useful as reaching out to a cloud. They’re not going to reach back, whether you insult them or not.
:D
Silly Wabbit .. tricks are for kids.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
There is no use trying to reason with creationists because you can’t fix stupid. Dr Dawkins is speaking in clear and unambiguous terms and this is good because it will appeal to people who are open-minded and not afflicted with idiotic religious delusions.
I think that Richard Dawkins’ labeling of Creationists and the like as “History-deniers” probably will hurt, rather than help him on that front. But honestly, Dawkins doesn’t really seem to care what Creationists and other think. My general feeling from his books on Atheism/Agnosticism and such are that they are written for Atheists/Agnostics mainly, but everyone is encouraged to read them. He also seems to thoroughly enjoy upsetting “the other side,” which he undoubtedly will accomplish with this naming.
@Elemenope; regarding your 5:39 pm comment
My compliments! As precise an argument as I have had the pleasure of reading lately.
A tip of my Stetson to you!
Thx, Austin & Mog. :)
I prefer “deluded whackaloons,” but it’s Dawkins’ book, so it’s Dawkins’ words.
Anyone that believes he or she has a grasp on history, has never read the oldest book known to man:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm
And, has never seen the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8bVEIVUh8
Anyone who doesn’t get the connection — is willfully choosing to remain on level one of knowledge. So be it.
Hi history denier!
Sorry mate, but there’s plenty of stuff older, all of which are non-Abrahamic ;
Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt; 2400-2300 BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria ; 2150-2000 BCE. The Rigveda of Hinduism ; 1700–1100 BCE. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta ; scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.
Just a few examples. There’s more. Plenty more. Besides, what has age got to do with somethings’ truthiness?
Pretty sure he’s kidding.
These days, I’m not so sure; lots of people believing in pretty screwed up stuff, it’s honestly *hard* to separate the ‘obviously joking’ from the ‘batshit insane.’ But I must admit, I didn’t click the YouTube link to the video of “giant” skeletons (pretty sloppy fakes, btw). But the thing is, some people believe in the hundreds of years old biblical people and their giant sizes, and swallow this stuff up without a single skeptical thought going through their head. It’s … bizarre.
It’s simply that IIRC, “youwishyouknew” posted elsewhere on the site recently and did not exhibit such…interesting beliefs. I agree that absent knowing that, it’s a harder call; some people really believe such rot.
Given more recent evidence, maybe I was wrong after all.
You evidently didn’t read the book. It is at the time before Noahs Flood.
Nothing predates this book. Show me if you find one.
On another note .. you guys are a sad lot. You defend your atheism on nothing but air.
But, I can show you God everywhere. You are blind, willful and pitiful. May God have mercy on you souls.
You can’t reason with an atheist – believe me, I know. You have been deceived by devils and you don’t recognize it. Some of you are devils – the very ones doing the deceiving.
(Judas was a devil — just in case you have “trouble” with devils)
Here’s a nice little devilish quote:
Iason Ouabache:
“We have to focus on those in the squishy middle. A great way to do that is to show how truly ridiculous the idea of Creationism is.”
You know, if I were an atheist — why would I have an agenda to change the world?
Think about it. Only a devil would have such an agenda.
Before you ridicule me — did you read the Book of Enoch?
Heres a mystery —> Why do Jews think they are the only ones on earth that are human?
Don’t know? Read the Book of Enoch.
Only devils want proof. It’s not for themselves (they know God exist), it’s for you.
Devils, they are everywhere. First, prove to us that you are not one.
I have read the book of Enoch, both Enoch 1 and Enoch 2, studied their history and relevance and so forth, so I actually do have a lot of knowledge of the topic at hand. *You* on the other hand didn’t seem to read what I wrote; there’s other books that are far older. Did you miss that part?
Next, you proclaim I’m a sad fellow, because I base my atheism on thin air? First, you don’t know I am an atheist. Nor do you know what I base my beliefs on. This makes you incredibly arrogant, and sucky at discourse, and I suspect this is why so few wish to engange in your drivel.
Of course you can reason with an atheist; they base their atheism mostly of reason. I think you’re using the word “reason” wrong, you probably mean you can’t bullshit an atheist into believing in magic-man and fairytales like you wish you could.
I’m a bit surprised with your angle on changing the world. Are you saying a wish to change world is a bad thing? Have you, um, looked at the world lately? It’s filled to brim with crap, and wanting to change that seems to me being a good thing. Only devils want to improve what is broken? That makes not being a devil a rather evil thing to be. Your arguments are very circular and contradicting.
“Only devils want proof?” Does that mean you’re happy to walk out the third-storey window without the proof that you’re on the ground floor? Again, you’re just spouting silliness. Everybody wants proof, you’re just picking out something you *can’t* prove as a pogrom for your argumentatively weak notions.
Sorry, but this is silly, and I’m wasting my time.
“You know, if I were an atheist — why would I have an agenda to change the world?
Think about it. Only a devil would have such an agenda.”
For the clear and obvious reason that this is the only word there is. Atheists do not look to some future in fairyland to make things better. The only place to make a better world is right here!
The fact that religion teaches either that this world is meant to be imperfect or that it is for god to fix, is one of its problems.
Even if you think we are wrong, at least concede that this is the only world we all, atheist and theist alike, believe in. And it is worth making that shared world a better place.
Thank you Gordon for perhaps the most reasonable statement I’ve read here:
“Even if you think we are wrong, at least concede that this is the only world we all, atheist and theist alike, believe in. And it is worth making that shared world a better place.”
An inherent part of the communication problem between Creationists and the “New Atheists” is that they are using the same sets of data for fundamentally different purposes and essentially get pissed that the other side doesn’t simply see things their way:
Creationists attempt to fit science into a philosophical worldview.
New Atheists attempt to explain away a philosophy with science.
Individuals may change disciplines, but the answers for one will never answer the questions of the other.
I think people are generally too offended by words in general. And technically, anyone who doesn’t side with the Christian right has occasionally been called heathen or satanist, or mostly non-believer. All of which are inaccurate. Does it really matter what terminology anyone uses?
“A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”.
Plus, anything that defends evolution will offend them anyway, so…..
Why are we suddenly caring about the feelings of people that refuse to hear any evidence that oppose their views and claim we are evil liars that caused the Holocaust and want to destroy America? We are not out to change the mind of those people because they don’t have a mind to change. We have to focus on those in the squishy middle. A great way to do that is to show how truly ridiculous the idea of Creationism is.
I think in one sense, ‘history-denier’ may come off sounding a bit like was said earlier – an us against them term. Let’s give us more reason to ridicule them and better names to call them.
However, I’m mostly of the mind that, whenever we’re not actually mocking them and ridiculing their notions, the useful terms are sort of pussy-footing around them. The idea of calling them history-deniers is “let’s not mince words”. I agree “history” does/might go overboard. Are they denying all history, all about history? Or the history of us? Just the history of us and with it, all life, and the lifetime of the earth and the universe. That’s a lot, but I agree, that’s not what usually comes to mind when ones says “history.” Usually, they are Creationists. And although we know what this means, and they use the term for themselves, it’s almost obscure. They are willfully denying something true.
I mean, to speak of another facet, they call themselves ‘pro-life’ and we call them anti-choice, it’s a way to call them what they really are. We might call them pro-life also in certain documents to communicate who the rest of the world will recognize on one side of the debate or another. Pro-choice people are also, technically “pro-life.” “Life” is a big word, like history. Pro-life supporters are, many of them, definitely not pro-all-life. But it’s not so designated. Anti-choice – they are also in favor of choice: their choice. They also want their choice about a lot of other issues. This is America (for me and some of us) – some of their choices are probably neutral and don’t need to be made unlawful.
So, yeah. Buzzwords. I think history-denier is ok. It’s a little abrasive, but it’s also a way of jarring people out of their patterns and cause them to really think about it. It can be dangerous if not used correctly, it can make for propaganda. It sounds juicy. Sometimes it just brings things to focus. If someone wasn’t paying attention, and they get that buzzword, things can really start to click for them, and they may not be literate enough to sort through facts. The Teabaggers are a great recent example how just calling it like you see it sets people up to regurgitate nonsense without thinking. It’s an easy way to lure in people who were sleepwalking and think and talk like you all of a sudden, when it really breaks it down for them.
In conclusion, I get a bit uncomfortable thinking people will read this and become the rabid sort of atheists everyone loathes.
“Do you think labeling creationists with that term makes them more likely to consider what Dawkins has to say about evolution, or less?”
I think that creationists who will change their beliefs are few and far between, and that it is unlikely to matter what Dawkins calls them so long as his evidence is presented well. That said, I do believe that “history deniers” is a carefully chosen term which ridicules creationists without being overtly offensive. Most fundies do not take that precaution when they call me a sodomite who’s going straight to hell when I happen to walk past wearing my nurse’s uniform (which I wear when I’m nursing, by the way, it’s not a kinky thing). I might find it funnier if I was actually gay, I suppose. I’ll have to ask some colleagues about that.
As Dude said in The Big Lebowski, “You’re not wrong Walter, you’re just an ass-hole.”
Dawkins is brilliant as a scientist, but he is lacking as a philosopher.
The atheist community have shown itself to possess the same strengths and weaknesses as any other community of belief, the most dangerous being groupthink.
Pointing out “unreasonable faith”, doesn’t actually make someone reasonable.
The atheist community have shown itself to possess the same strengths and weaknesses as any other community of belief, the most dangerous being groupthink.
If you’re referring to the so-called “New Atheists” you may be correct, but as far as Atheism in general, I have to disagree. There certainly are identifiable general trends among Atheists about social, political, and philosophical opinions, much like any other group, but there is precious little if any socializing force which reinforces these trends.
My personal opinions as an Atheist on many of these areas puts me solidly in the minority of Atheists as a group, and yet I have felt precious little pressure to conform or subordinate my conclusions on such issues to the group. When those pressures do come up, they tend to come up not in the context of Atheism but on the more specific social, political, or philosophical group at issue.
Oh yeah? You better think just like we (er, I) do, or…. or…. I’M GONNA BEAT YOU UP.
Or even worse, maybe I’ll post a youtube video mocking one of your sociological philosophies!
Take that, nope. We’ll have groupthink or else!
ROFL
As Jesus said in The Big Lebowski, “Nobody f*cks with the Jesus!”
LOL!!!
There may be groupthink (it would be naturally expected), but on what level is it? I see quite some atheists using the same favorite phrases from a Dawkins book or a Hitchens speech, or from Russell or Sagan etc. I see atheists joining comment threads to articulate anger, outrage or ridicule even when no theist or other superstitionist is present. But that’s just about it.
When hundreds of thousands or millions of atheists travel around the world at once to listen to a Dawkins speech on a public square (the periphery, infrastructure, security etc. likely paid for not by the RDF but the state), to repeat his sentences in unison after him, to end with a mantra of universal and cosmic significance, for the glory of the nonexistence of gods, maybe then I’ll be able to view the ‘groupthink’ on the level I see at megachurches, on St. Peter’s Square, at World Youth Days.
The level it’s currently at is really not even in the same stadium, figuratively as well as literally spoken.
Then again, I’ve never met two theists who thought alike, either.
So, there’s that.
Anyone who is willing to defend the legitimacy of the Creation Museum in the face of the evidence we currently have is never going to concede their position, regardless of what science discovers. Our only hope is continuing to point out their absurd beliefs pushes them to the fringes of religious tolerance and unimportance (i.e. Scientology).
I think in the context of the book, it makes sense, since he essentially says, “Anyone who reads this book and still denies evolution is being dishonest.” The only thing that might have made it more tactful is if he presented the term after his evidence for evolution, age of the earth, etc.
Of course, if he left it for the end of the book, you miss the effect of having a sensationalist, provocative term in the first five pages of the book, where people are far more likely to read it.
What if we call them “cdesign proponentsists”?
My feeling is that it doesn’t matter what he calls them.
Exposing the devils:
http://www.unveilingthem.com/SecretCovenant.htm
Sunny Day:
“Devils, they are everywhere. First, prove to us that you are not one.”
Devils don’t expose themselves.
Devils came from the aftermath of Noahs Flood —> The Book of Enoch – chapter 15
(devils, demons, evil spirits)
You’re joking, right? RIGHT?
If the devils are everywhere, then tat must mean I am likely one of them, in which case I must cheer their success, and your failure.
It’s a bummer how the “there are enemies EVERYWHERE!!!!one!1eleven!!!” shtick works out when you stop to think about it.
Rofl.
Biblical “devils” (demons) expose themselves: “Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” (Mark 5:9)
Biblical “devils” (demons) date from before the flood: “the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” (1 John 3:8)
I dunno which ones you’re talking about, but they sure aren’t the biblical ones…
Maybe you are a troll. *fingers crossed*
Did you know that a global flood is literally impossible? Can’t have happened.
Ah, ah. But it’s magic water. A wizard did it, after all.
Somehow “creating a volume of water roughly the size of Mercury, and then making it disappear afterward” and “teleporting penguins” and “erasing the memories of all the Chinese and Egyptians” (and…) seem more magic than resurrection days after death. Which is also magic.
That is, a global flood is not just physically impossible, it is also theoretically impossible.
By your limited secular logic, rodney, but you forgot to factor in that God could have performed an ass-load of miracles before, during, and after the Flood. That is the explanation they always end up with anyway when creationists attempt to explain how the Flood was perfectly possible.
If you believe that an entity had the power to bring the universe and all life in it in to existence then a global flood doesn’t sound that difficult.
Funny how god was so gung-ho with the miracles back then, but these days he just cant be bothered with anything that doesnt fit within chance!
Why not miraculously undo global warming? Why not heal every single person with cancer on the same day? Why not write “Where are my blood sacrifices?” in giant letters in the sky?
All we hear attributed to god these days is “I was worried about my daughter when she was late home from a party, but then she showed up” or “a team of skilled doctors operated on me, and I got better”
Imagine if the Old Testament was like that!
Noah was commanded by god to build an ark, but the rains never came, so it must just have been a test. The angel of the lord visited every house in Egypt and some of the first born had nightmares, the others must just not have remembered the nightmares!
“Why not heal every single person with cancer on the same day?”
You might well ask why give them cancer in the first place?
“You might well ask why give them cancer in the first place?”
Well giving them cancer fits with the Old Testament “Hardening of Pharoh’s Heart” where god sets the situation up to allow himself the opportunity to show off the shiny miracles he’s got planned.
“Devils don’t expose themselves.”
Yep, just as I thought. You are a devil.
We can’t believe anything you say.
Given the update, I’m thinking that the term history-deniers as intended for the history-deniers to react will either make them angry enough to read this ridiculous trash in direct peril of learning something or throw it across the room. What sinister Elemonope will probably link to next is the tv tropes page for “wall banger.” Don’t click on it. Anyway, the refusal of history-deniers to accept the term either means it’s too offensive or it’s just right, or not strong enough. History-denier-deniers.
I would never do such a thing.
You must think me a terrible villain.
It seems pretty obvious. The conversation is inflamed enough. Using the word “denier” let alone “history-denier” isn’t going to help accomplish anything other than to further inflame the conversation.
Do you believe it is possible to engage in rational debate with people who cling to irrational ideas?
If a person chooses to believe in YEC in our modern world, surrounded by all the evidence contradicting it, is there a rational evidence based way to debate that person?
No, there isn’t. It doesn’t necessarily follow that there is no way to debate that person in a way that isn’t infected with invective.
But, at that point we are no longer debating that person. Aren’t we speaking to those who are watching? And isn’t there some value in pointing out that it is completely crazy to believe the things that our opponent believes? Even if that hurts their feelings?
The sad truth is that if you debate crazy ideas with evidence and logic, some portion of your audience will infer that this means the crazy idea must have some evidence and logic of its own.
You can’t save everyone.
But dammit man, we have to try!!!
Damn straight. But no matter what, there will be collateral damage. I’ve just been arguing in this thread overall that there is more collateral damage done by some techniques than others; name-calling is like carpet-bombing. Every once in a while you’ll get a convert, but mostly you’ll just entrench the enemy and encourage neutrals to sympathize with them.
Sure, logic & reason can backfire, lending credence to an otherwise absurd position. But I would submit to you that that ground was already lost when the creationist shows up in a smart suit with a nice tie and a sonorous baritone voice. That guy couldn’t be completely full of shit, just look how pretty he is! The very act of debate is validation that the other side has points needing to be countered.
Some more proof, many refrences given for cross-checking.
Sorry, no link to this document on web.
Author – Finis Jennings Dake
1. The fact that giants or beings of abnormal size in body, have lived on earth is one of the most clearly stated truths in Scripture. The Heb. nephilim from nephil means giant, bully, or tyrant (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). That they were abnormal in bodily size is clear from the fact that men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them (Num. 13:33). The Heb. gibbor is also trans. giant, meaning powerful, giant, mighty, or strong man (Num. 13:33; Job 16:14). To say that these original words refer to degree of wickedness instead of size in body, is a mistake.
The Anakims were a people great and tall in body (Dt. 1:28; 2:10-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21-22; 14:12-14). Anak himself was of the giants; and if he and all Anakims were so big, we can be assured the other giants were also (Num. 13:22,33). The land of Ammon was a land of giants, for giants dwelled there in old time (Dt. 2:19-20). The Emims were also great, many, and tall as the Anakims (Dt. 2:10-11). Zamzummims were called giants, a people great, many, and tall as the Anakims. They dwelled in the land of Ammon from of old (Dt. 2:19-21). Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose bedstead was of iron and about 18 ft. 6 in. long and 8 ft. 4 in. wide. This is not a measurement of wickedness, but of a material bed for a giant body measuring not too far from 18 ft. tall (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Bashan is called the land of the giants (Dt. 3:13).
A valley of the giants is mentioned in Josh. 15:8; 18:16. This is the same as the valley of Rephaim, the name of another branch of the giant races so often mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; 2Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:13; 1Chr. 11:15; 14:9; Isa. 17:5). The Rephaims were well known giants, but unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture, the translators translated it dead (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:8; 26:19); and deceased (Isa. 26:14). The word should have been retained as a proper name in all these places, as it is 10 times otherwise.
Rephaim is trans. giant (2Sam. 21:16; 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4, 6, 8) and giants (Dt. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 18:16). The phrase remnant of the giants in Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12 should be remnant of the Rephaims, for there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God’s claim on the promised land. They are listed as: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtorims, and Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; 14:5-6; 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Dt. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:11-13; 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 12:4-8; 13:3; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16). Og was of the remnant of Rephaims, not the remnant of all other giant nations (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12).
All these giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs. (2Sam. 21:16-22; 1Chr. 20:4-8). Goliath whom David slew, wore a coat of armour weighing 196 lbs. and was about 13 ft. tall (1Sam. 17:4-6).
The Revelation we have of giants, in Scripture, gives us a true picture of what Greek mythology tries in vain to give. Ours is an accurate account because divinely inspired. Mythology is the outgrowth of traditions, memories, and legends telling of the acts of the supernatural fathers and their giant offspring – the perversion and corruption in transmission of actual facts concerning these mighty beings. The fact that giants were partly of supernatural origin made it easy to regard them as gods.
2. The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa. 26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men. All ordinary men are to be resurrected (Jn. 5:28-29); therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Heb. Rephaim) are now in hell (Isa. 14:9). Solomon confirms the same in Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16 where the word dead is Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible.
3. The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of the Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been nor can be produced from a union of any ordinary men and women, regardless of how righteous the father is or how wicked the mother is. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ, have been married to unconverted women, and no such offspring the size of Bible giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today?
4. God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind. It was not possible then, that giants could be produced by men and women (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19) of ordinary size. It took the supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels to make offspring of such extra size within the human species. After the variation of the species, which had to do with size only, and when giants had come into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num. 13:33; 2Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1Chr. 20:4-8).
5. Not only is it unscriptual but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen. 6:4 makes it clear – from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude 4 things:
(1) That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men. Or,
(2) That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
(3) That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
(4) That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.
All 4 conclusions are wrong however, as proved every day by the marriages of unconverted persons with the converted and the producing of offspring through the union of a wicked parent and a godly one. Thus, the theory that giants came from the marriage of Seth’s sons with Cain’s daughters is disproved.
6. The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth or other godly men for the following 7 reasons:
(1) There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Enoch (Gen. 5:21-24; Heb. 11:5), and Noah (Gen. 6:8; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), as far as Scripture records are concerned. Shall we conclude that these 3 men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen. 6:4)? We have no record of any such marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch , are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would had been nothing on earth after the flood but giants born of Noah’s giant sons, for by his children the whole earth was then replenished (Gen. 10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery – how giants became ordinary sized men again.
(2) The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriage of Seth’s sons could not have taken place during the first 325 years, for he had only one son of marriageable age up to that time (Gen. 5:1-8) and he (Enos) was not godly. To say that there were no such marriages before Enos would contradict Gen. 6:1-2 which shows that sons of God married daughters of men which such daughters began to be born. Shall we conclude that daughters were not born in the first 325 years? If so, then where did Cain, Seth and others get their wives?
Futhermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen. 6:8-9; 7:1; 2Pet. 2:4-5). His sons were preserved in the ark because of being pure Adamite stock and not because of personal righteousness. The foregoing facts then, would limit these marriages to the 731 years between the first 325 years and the last 600 of the Antediluvian Age; whereas, sons of God actually married daughters of men throughout the entire 1,656 years of that age. Gen. 6:1-2 makes it clear that this happened “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth”.
(3) Gen. 6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after those days which were after the flood) as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If, as is taught, the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them after that (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But, with the daughters of Cain (suppose to be the daughters of men), the story is different. Cain’s line perished in the flood, both men and women, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood, for sons of God to marry.
(4) The Bible gives us no reason to believe that the statement “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair” should be limited to Cain’s daughters. Other families had daughters too, thousands of families which made up the many branches of the race both before and after the flood. These were daughters of men, too. In the 1,656 years before the flood (which is the period in which Seth and Cain lived), there must have been from 150,000,000 to 500,000,000 people. It is unbelievable that so many as half of these were godly and half ungodly; and we know that they were not limited to two lines – the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Regarding Seth’s daughters we have reason to believe that they were as fair as the daughters of Cain – beautiful enough to attract men as husbands for themselves. The line of Seth alone survived the flood, so we know this is true. Gen. 6:1-2 therefore, cannot be said to refer only to the daughters of Cain; and the term daughters of men cannot be limited to mean only the daughters of Cain.
(5) The very expressions, sons of God and daughters of men, indicate two different kinds – one the product of God, the other the product of man. Seth was not God, so why call the sons of God the sons of Seth?
(6) It is a matter of record that Seth’s children were as ungodly as Cain’s.
(7) With the exception of Noah and his family all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth, before the flood (Gen. 6:12), which means the entire race (besides Noah’s family) had become a mixture of fallen angels and men, or giants. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam; and this is really why they were saved in the ark. They were the only ones capable of giving the race a new clean start after the flood. It is said of Noah that he was just a man and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The word for perfect in the Heb. is tamim, which means without blemish. It is the technical word for bodily perfection, and not moral perfection. Hence, it is used of the sacrificial animals of the O.T. which had to be of pure stock and without blemish (Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev.1:3; 3:1-6; 4:3, 23-32; 5:15-18; 6:6; 9:2-3; Ezek. 43:22-25; 45:18-23); without spot (Num. 19:2; 28:3-11; 29:17, 26); and undefiled (Ps. 119:1). The use of this word in connection with Noah means that he and his sons were the only pure Adamites left, and for such purity they (regardless of the sons’ position in personal holiness) were all preserved in the ark.
Proofs the sons of God were angels
Since it cannot possibly be that the sons of God who married the daughters of men and produced giants by them, were the sons of Seth or godly men marrying ungodly women, then it must be that the sons of Gen. 6, were fallen angels. That this is true is clear from many scriptures, as follows:
(1) The expression sons of God is found only 5 times in the O.T. and every time it is used of angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). It is indisputable that the passages in Job refer to angels. Dan. 3:25, 28 calls an angel the son of God. Is it not possible then, that the sons of God of Gen. 6 could be angels?
(2) Some translations, as the Septuagint, Moffat, and others read, angels of God in Gen. 6:1-4, which is the only idea that will harmonize with facts in the passage itself, as well as many other passages.
(3) Josephus says,
“many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of their own strength… these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants” (Ant. Book I, ch. 3).
Again, he says,
“There was till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day” (Ant. Book V, ch. 2).
(4) The Ante-Nicene Fathers also refer to angels as falling
“into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh…. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants”
(Vol. 2, p. 142; Vol. 8, p. 85, 273).
Justyn Martyr, 110-165 A.D., says,
“But the angels transgressed… were captivated by love of women, and begat children” (Vol. 2, p. 190).
Methodius, 260-312 A.D., says,
“the devil was insolent …. as also those (angels) who were enamoured of fleshly charms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men”
(Vol. 6, p. 370).
(5) Both testaments of the Bible teach that some angels committed sex sins and lived contrary to nature. Gen. 6:1-4 gives the history of such sinning. In 2Pet. 2:4-5 we have the statement that angels did sin before the flood and for their sin were cast down to hell to be reserved until judgement. This passage does not reveal that the sin was fornication, but Jude 1:6-7 does, saying:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner (as did the angels) , giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 1:6-7 (KJV)
If Sodom, Gomorrha and other cities lived contrary to nature and committed fornication, as the angels did, then it is clear that the sin of angels was that of fornication. According to Gen. 6 this sex sin was committed with “daughters of men.”
(6) The one scripture used to teach that angels are sexless, which is Mt. 22:30, does not say that they are. It states that:
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mt. 22:30 (KJV)
The purpose of this verse is to show that men and women who have part in the resurrection do not marry, nor do they need to, in order to keep their kind in existence. In the resurrected state they live forever, but not as sexless beings. The Bible teaches that every person will continue bodily as he was born, in all eternity. Paul said that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1Cor. 15:35-38). If one is a male he will continue as such with all his bodily parts. If one is a female in this life she will be resurrected as such even though her body is changed from mortality to immortality, and is called a spiritual body (1Cor. 15:35-54). There is nothing in the resurrection to uncreate men and women. Christ remained a man after His resurrection and so will all other males.
Throughout Scripture, angels are spoken of as men. No female angels are on record. It is logical to say then, that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, inasmuch as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Heb. 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair, Adam and Eve who were commanded to reproduce and thereby make the multitudes. That angels have tangible spirit bodies with bodily parts, appear as men, and have performed acts equal to and surpassing those of the human male, is clear from many passages.
The fact that some angels “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,” as stated in Jude 1:6 to commit sin makes it somewhat understandable how a sex sin could be accomplished by them. The Gr. for habitation is oiketerion. It is used only twice in the Scripture, and then concerning the bodies of men being changed to spiritual bodies (2Cor. 5:2), and the angels having a bodily change, or at least a lowering of themselves in some way (Jude 1:6-7). This, in the N.T. helps explain the history of the O.T. concerning the angels living contrary to their nature and producing giants “when the sons of God (angels) came in unto (had relationship with) the daughters of men” as Gen. 6:4 says and other passages confirm.
(7) There are 2 classes of fallen angels – those loose with Satan who will be cast down to earth during the future tribulation (Rev. 12:7-12), and those who are now bound in hell for committing what the Bible calls fornication (2Pet. 2:4; Jude 1:6-7). Had the ones in hell not committed the additional sin of fornication, they would still be loose, with the others, to help Satan in the future. Their present confinement proves they committed a sin besides that of original rebellion with Satan. That it was sex sin is clear from 2Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7, which fact identifies this class of fallen angels as the sons of God of Gen. 6:1-4.
(8) In 1Pet. 3:19-20 we see that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” . Who are these spirits in prison, if not the confined angels who once lived contrary to their nature – in sin with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4)? We read “Who maketh his angels spirits”(Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:13-14). If angels are spirits, we can then conclude that the imprisoned ones Christ preached to were angels and the sons of God referred to in Gen. 6, especially since they “were disobedient … in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” The very purpose of Noah’s flood was to destroy the giant offspring of these angels known as the sons of God who “came in unto the daughters of men.”
The purpose of Satan in producing giants
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the seed of the woman should come. This would advert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the planet earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the seed of the woman should defeat Satan and restore man’s dominion (Gen. 3:15). The only way then, for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible. This, he tried to accomplish by sending some of his fallen angels to marry the daughters of men as in Gen. 6:1-4, and producing the giant nations through them.
There are two such eruptions of fallen angels taught in Gen. 6:4; There were giants in the earth in those days (before the flood); and also after that (after the flood), when the sons of God (fallen angels) came in unto the daughters of men (any daughters of men – Cain, Seth and others), and they bare children to them (to the angels).
Satan almost succeeded in his plan during the first eruption, “for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” and of all the multitudes Noah and his sons were the only pure Adamites left to be preserved by the ark (Gen. 6:8-13; 1Pet. 3:19-20). The main object of the flood was to do away with all this satanic corruption, destroy the giants, and preserve the pure Adamite stock so as to make good the guarantee of the coming of the seed of the woman, as in the plan of God.
Being defeated before the flood did not stop Satan from making a futher attempt to prevent the coming of the Redeemer who should be his final downfall. It was now to his advantage that God had promised never to send another universal flood upon the earth. Satan therefore reasoned that he should make a second attempt to do away with Adamite stock. If he came within “eight souls” of doing it before the flood, his opportunities were now even greater, with the promise that there would be no such flood. This is the reason for the second group of his fallen angels being sent to marry the daughters of men. Once again, the unions produced giants, and races of them occupied the land of promise, where the seed should be born, in advance of Abraham. Limited by His promise of no flood, God was then faced with the problem of destroying the giant races another way.
This explains why He commanded Israel to kill them everyone, even to the last man, woman and child. This again explains why He destroyed all the men, women and children besides Noah and his family, at the time of the flood. It also answers the skeptics question regarding why the children were taken away with the adults in the flood. God had to do away with this corruption entirely in order to fulfill His eternal plan and give the world its promised Redeemer. The Redeemer has come now, and so Satan is reserving his forces for a last stand at the 2nd coming of Christ.
Thus it is clear from Scripture that there were giants in the earth both before and after the flood and that they came from a union of fallen angels and the daughters of men.
Assertions aren’t proofs.
You don’t say.
Are you saying before there were women, men had to have the babies?
Your story sounds fantastic. Too bad it is full of logical errors to be as true as you wish it was.
@ Ty
Do you believe it is possible to engage in rational debate with people who cling to irrational ideas?
Yes, Ty, it is possible! Not only is it possible to rationally debate people who cling to irrational ideation, in my profession (applied psychlogy), such methodology is considered to moral, ethical and based on the latest rational evidence based” science. In fact, the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that anyone adopting an approach “infected with invective” (thanks, Elemenope, nice phrase) would be considered to potentially be in violation of professional standards of practice and conduct. (The only exception being that such a radical approach were to be configured as a research protocol which was review and approved by a human / patient right committee prior to being reviewed and approved by an institutional review board.)
The therapeutic professions abandoned such ineffective and highly dangerous approaches decades ago. Why and for what reason the general public, and some in the scientific community, continue to proclaim the positive attributes of an approach “infected with invective” is….. confusing.
Now, lets review the evidence, through “the historians” …
1. That a group of Watcher Angels mated with human females.
2. That the union of these two produced giants.
3. That the result of which, corrupted the human bloodline.
4. That God flooded the world to destroy the corruption.
5. That the corruption continued after the flood.
6. That God led the Hebrews out of Egypt to purge the giants
who occupied the land that God would give them. (Num 13:33)
7. That King David continued on with the purge of the giants. (Goliath, et al)
8. That Jewish historian Josephus makes entry of giant bones being seen in that day.
9. That the death of these giants produced demons (devils, evil spirits).
10. That Jesus and His Deciples cast demons out of humans.
The question is:
If the Watcher Angels mated with human females …
did they also mate with female animals, which produced giant animals?
http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html
“If a single, well verified mammal skull
were to turn up in 500 million year old
rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution
would be utterly destroyed.” — RICHARD DAWKINS
Huh? Well, I guess so – since there’s no such thing as 500 million year old rock.
I base my belief on real history – from real people – not rocks.
http://s8int.com/dna1.html
I’ve given you guys enough evidence to go down dozens of rabbit holes.
I’ve said my peace .. I’m out.
Evidence, that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You miserable puking retard.
Holy shit!
That is sort of amazing in its total failure.
Like a car wreck. But an absurd car wreck, like an ice cream truck crashing into the pope-mobile.
Mmmm… funny hatsicles. Vaticones.
Ha!
Don’t forget popesicles.
I really liked vaticones.
It sounds somehow dirty.
I think if you told this guy that “historians” saw an elephant mating with a mermaid which produced a unicorn, he’d believe you and start preaching it at aunicorn websites.
Hence now we demand pics or it didn’t happen.
Dawkins is a genius, and I admire his work.
But the problem with dawkins is he isnt very approachable to the fence sitters.
I enjoy his books and his essays, but if you are trying to persuade a fence sitter then recommend Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer.
I don’t see what’s wrong with calling them history-deniers. They are what they are.
I mean all this stuff about caring about people’s feelings is lame. I think they’d respect us more if we had a more direct approach, like Dawkins. Otherwise, we just seem like wimpy bleeding hearts.