[lotsofmangos]

I am not sure that describing creationists to be in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance is anything to do with the argument presented by the article.

Also, I was not addressing the article, I was addressing the comment of pcunite and their problem with the language used in one particular sentence, which is something I partly agree with and is nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the article itself.

If someone tries to teach children maths by telling them "listen up idiots, two plus two is four", and I pick them up for their use of language, it has no real bearing on my view of the usefulness of learning addition.

[Retra]

But rhetoric is useful to teaching, and especially to writing popular articles. (I even learned what 'benighted' means today.)

Maybe it's not that useful to creationists. Almost anybody else would be able to see past it and get some real content. I don't think most creationists would be bothered to do that either way.

[lotsofmangos]

Rhetoric is a two way street. It can be just as damaging as it can be beneficial.

Also, the observation that almost anyone other than a creationist would be able to get past a line that specifically insults creationists, is not that surprising.

edit - It is a great article, that for the most part deals with a very complex subject really well. I am just saying that the philosophical point scoring in the introduction added nothing to it and has then had a damaging effect on the discussion of it here, where that sentence has triggered the largest thread, to the detriment of the rest of the actual content.

If creationists are supposed to just get over being insulted, presumably atheists can also get over a single comment by a creationist asking not to be.

[Retra]

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm perfectly content to live in a world where people experience an intellectual and social disadvantage for believing in nonsense.

[pcunite]

"I'm perfectly content to live in a world where people experience an intellectual and social disadvantage for believing in nonsense."

I truly believe that you'll get to experience that world someday. However, you needn't wait. There are several countries today that kill and shame those who don't think like them. Go try one of them and report your success.

[lotsofmangos]

Hang on.

You have admitted that you didn't even know the meaning of the sentence that you have been defending until I posted the meaning of the word 'benighted', while criticizing those who were upset by it for holding faith based positions?

Sorry, but that is hilarious.

(edited slightly for clarity)

[eropple]

He didn't say he learned it when you posted it, did he?

And even so, the contextual value of the word would be obvious in context.

[lotsofmangos]

No, but if you post a dictionary definition of a word and someone's next reply contains an aside that they learned the definition of a new word today, from context it usually means they learned it there and then.

As for the article, without knowing the definition of 'benighted', there are several different meanings available.

For example, say it meant 'dedicated'. That would fit perfectly, but the phrase would then have a different meaning of one who believes completely, rather than someone who is a fool for believing.

[Retra]

I looked it up before I defended it. My telling you that I just learned it wasn't really a relevant point until I mentioned it.

[alexqgb]

While it would certainly be wrong to call children idiots when teaching them basic arithmetic I'm not convinced it's entirely out of place when you're explaining the same thing to grown adults.