Creationism vs. Science

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

Creationism vs. Science

 

 

[Pete]

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Just so.  When the changing demographics hit a critical mass -- things will change.  They will have to change.

 

The now, culturally dominant, Fundamentalists, had best hope that the new Secular majority -- are more tolerant than they have been.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

 

 

 

[Pete]

Oh! I do hope so. The idea of treating people as you want to be treated does not have to belong to religion and I think of the number of wars created by religion or supported by religion and I do hope that people will respond to science and logic rather than centuries old dogma. Compassion has a survival function as well as a humanistic function. We need to move forward with what matters in this life rather the unprovable possibilities in another, I see the campaign against climate change as one of those developments whilst some religious nutters I hear are trying to destroy the planet in hope it brings Jesus back sooner, Sheer madness,  I hope for better things.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

Oh! I do hope so. The idea of treating people as you want to be treated does not have to belong to religion and I think of the number of wars created by religion or supported by religion and I do hope that people will respond to science and logic rather than centuries old dogma. Compassion has a survival function as well as a humanistic function. We need to move forward with what matters in this life rather the unprovable possibilities in another, I see the campaign against climate change as one of those developments whilst some religious nutters I hear are trying to destroy the planet in hope it brings Jesus back sooner, Sheer madness,  I hope for better things.

 

 

I'm not big on religious persecution.  Still, the urge to revenge might be hard to ignore.

 

 

[Pete]

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I'm not big on religious persecution.  Still, the urge to revenge might be hard to ignore.

 

 

Me neither. Maybe it will just mean fundamentalists will just be ignored in the future. I do hope so.

[LeopardBoy]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I'm not big on religious persecution.  Still, the urge to revenge might be hard to ignore.

 

 

And I fear those among us who are religious but not monotheistic fundamentalists will get swept up in this as collateral damage, which is just more of the same we’ve been getting with Christianity as the dominant cultural worldview. There are unfortunately a lot of atheists who define the word religion in the same exclusive way fundamentalist Christians do.

[Pete]

There a lot who define themselves as religious such as Bhuddists, Quakers UK, and Unitarians and have atheist and agnostic members.  Freedom of thought is important but I also believe that politics should be secular so as to ensure that freedom of thought. No one religion can be trusted and especially if its fundamental. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, LeopardBoy said:

And I fear those among us who are religious but not monotheistic fundamentalists will get swept up in this as collateral damage, which is just more of the same we’ve been getting with Christianity as the dominant cultural worldview. There are unfortunately a lot of atheists who define the word religion in the same exclusive way fundamentalist Christians do.

 

 

I can't speak for other Atheists.  Speaking for myself -- I have never -- not even once -- felt put upon, coerced or abused -- by any variety of Polytheist, Pagan or Heathen.  My loose observation, has always been, that Polytheists are a mellow, easy going lot.  They never tell anybody what to believe.  What they should pray to or reverence.  What they should or shouldn't do.  They never impose public ceremony or ritual.  There is nothing to resent.

 

Yes, there are Atheists who lack discernment.  My expectation, is that the majority of Atheists -- who have thought about it at all -- recognize Polytheists as allies, who have put up with the same crap, from the same fundamentalists.  It's not as though the money says -- "In gods we trust."

 

Consider this board.  I have never seen an Atheist or Agnostic, have a single unkind word, for our Polythistic minded bretheren.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

There a lot who define themselves as religious such as Bhuddists, Quakers UK, and Unitarians and have atheist and agnostic members.  Freedom of thought is important but I also believe that politics should be secular so as to ensure that freedom of thought. No one religion can be trusted and especially if its fundamental. 

 

 

Christopher Hitchens is one of the greatest intellectual Atheists, the world has ever seen.  He always insisted that governments should be Secular, rather than Atheist.  He was clear on this.  He didn't want an Atheist government, that would persecute religion.  He wanted Secular government, that would neither help nor hinder religion.  He was right and I fully agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In time to come, I expect that there will be a backlash to the dominant cultural religion -- and it's culture of enforced public prayer -- and supposed moral superiority and smugness.  Both Christianity and Islam  What I have in mind, is in the nature of a reality shift.

 

I'm sure we all remember when smoking was cool.  When a smoker could simply light up, any where, any time, with impunity.  Anyone who asked the smoker to stop, would likely get smoke blown in their face by way of response.

 

There has been a reality shift.  Largely in response to the smug, self righteousness of smokers.   Even more than objections to the actual smoke -- there was resentment against the smoker.  As in -- How dare they stink everything up.  We have gone from smoking being cool -- to smoking being disgusting.  Even where smoking is legal -- there is now the common glare of disgust.

 

This is the future I see for culturally dominant religion.  It should never be outlawed.  The religions which have been the most dominant -- the most oppressive -- the most intrusive -- the most abusive -- will discover the meaning of resentment.  Their religion will be legal.  It won't be tolerated.  Or respected.  This is physics.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  

 

The religions which have never made enemies -- won't have any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[damnthing]

I was just reading an article about the flat earther who died trying to prove the earth is flat, " “I don’t want to take anyone else’s word for it...” “I don’t believe in science...” You would think that would  be enough but no, he had more to say on the subject of science (and by extension, education, research and intelligence),

“I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction.” Imagine that, not science, just a formula. Well the formula technically is math, but the science behind (yup, aero- and fluid dynamics is science), pretty solid, based on experimentation. But sadly, science or not, he just didn't know enough about aero or fluid dynamics, or physics, or gravity and he met his earthly demise. Wonder what his thoughts were on the way back down.

 

And yes, creationism is, was, the root cause. Silly old wives tales based on innocent ignorance (originally, that is). That anybody in 2020 can still believe that nonsense is such a sad state of affairs and is entirely religion's fault (to be clear, a certain kind of religion, not all). Sadly people are willing to throw away knowledge, throw away decades, centuries of scientific research and experiments in favor of children's stories that were never intended to replace actual knowledge. All those stories were, were just people's way of trying to explain things that they didn't understand. As knowledge was gained, it replaced superstition and the supernatural. But now it appears that some people are just moving backwards. It's easier to just throw up your hands and say god did it. No homework, no classes, no quizzes or tests, certainly no college and no degrees. Nope, a couple years of home schooling from a mom who thinks dinosaurs lived along side puppy dogs. What can possibly go wrong?

 

 

[damnthing]

To be fair, one needs to listen to the other side's story. Pay special attention from the 3:00 minute mark thru 5:00 min, kinda sums up their whole mindset

https://youtu.be/CFYswvGoaPU

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, damnthing said:

To be fair, one needs to listen to the other side's story. Pay special attention from the 3:00 minute mark thru 5:00 min, kinda sums up their whole mindset

https://youtu.be/CFYswvGoaPU

 

 

 

Ken Ham with Answers In Genesis.  AKA  Ham and A.I.G.  It's old news and it's pure mind rot.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Ken Ham strikes back.  The Smithsonian teaches Atheism.

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2020/03/smithsonian-is-a-museum-that-promotes-atheism-says-ken-ham/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=895

[Pete]

Teaching about Genesis and the ark is not about atheism. I wonder if they have a room beside the ark room for when you want split your sides laughing at the exhibition. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Teaching about Genesis and the ark is not about atheism. I wonder if they have a room beside the ark room for when you want split your sides laughing at the exhibition. 

 

 

 

There is nothing new about this foolishness.  Creationists have long insisted that Secular Humanists, Atheists, etc -- were a religion.  The idea that people are simply not religious -- is beyond them.

 

 

In fairness, the Smithsonian does teach people about reality.  Reality impaired people, tend to resent that sort of thing.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl