Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Ratty]

You wrote things here that I'm replying to

I hope you realize that swinging on the idealogical pendulum is highly unintelligent. Just because the neocons exist doesn't mean that having an equally outspoken group on the other side of the spectrum is necessary.

Oh I do realize that it's not purely a result of unemotional analysis. But it's an inevitable reaction none the less. Particularly in a time like this when, as I said, religion[footnote]Or, more precisely, politically herded religious congregations.[/footnote] is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

 

[ckam]

Well, that's just rude of them. Until, there can be sermons about the scientific method, those kind of people shouldn't complain about being unfair.

 

[truckspond]

There isn't really that much to say about this except...

Ninja'd. However, it took until the second page for this to be posted. Getting a little slow on the draw there, Escapist...

And the reason for that is that I got a "Low Content" warning for that. Obviously the moderators here do not like it when people use videos with more content than words can deliver in their posts

 

[Sofus]

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Oh really? Then who created this odder? Or the muffins?

Also, what's an odder?

It was simply a spelling error on my part.. I used the danish word instead of the english one. Odder = Otter

As with any good religion, I came upon the concept while I was sleep depraved and bored. Regarding your other (Otter? lol) questions... it's not that i'm utterly incapable of answering them without first ingesting large quanteties of LSD.. it's just that i'm not allowed to share that information with the non-believers

 

[Westaway]

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

 

[Neta]

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

 

[Westaway]

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

I don't understand what idea you're trying to communicate there. "Population" was obviously referring to human population. The population of all living things on Earth is a completely false comparison. The other two things you listed are clearly things in the majority, so I'm not sure what point they could possibly be making.
I wasn't even making disparaging remarks about homosexuals.

 

[Ratty]

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

Humans are social animals, it is inevitable however you wish to qualify it.

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

If you're trying to say that LGBTs will be discriminated against in all smaller, traditional communities you're just wrong.

There have been cultures throughout human history that have accepted LGBTs to varying degrees. I recall reading the memoirs of an Anthropologist couple who stayed with an African tribe before Christian missionaries got there in (I think) the 1970s. Homosexuality (or at least homosexual sex among men) was seen as a normal part of every day life. Somewhat formalized with men tending to move from the "bottom" to the "top" as they got older. When the same anthropologists came back some years later, after missionaries had been there, the people they had known were ashamed of their former sexual way of life and never spoke of it.

Then of course there are the ancient Greeks, and the famous four genders of the Navajo. These are just examples off the top of my head, I'm sure someone who looked could come up with many more. The point is, discrimination against LGBTs is by no means a given for any society. It is usually the result of tradition which springs from some long forgotten crises, such as ancient Hebrews being afraid of underpopulation. And it would appear that the world is in no danger of being underpopulated right now.

 

[Westaway]

Snip

Again, I am well aware that homosexuality has been "acceptable" in several societies throughout the world. I was speaking of traditional communities. As in, communities where homosexuality has always been taboo. These are the only communities where religion is being used as an excuse to persecute. If their religion somehow dissolved, they would find other reasons to persecute the homosexuals.

 

[Neta]

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

I don't understand what idea you're trying to communicate there. "Population" was obviously referring to human population. The population of all living things on Earth is a completely false comparison. The other two things you listed are clearly things in the majority, so I'm not sure what point they could possibly be making.
I wasn't even making disparaging remarks about homosexuals.

By your logic left-handed people and blonds are "abnormal".

The thing about insects was supposed to be a joke, I forgot to add the smiley face at the end.

 

[Ratty]

Snip

Again, I am well aware that homosexuality has been "acceptable" in several societies throughout the world. I was speaking of traditional communities. As in, communities where homosexuality has always been taboo. These are the only communities where religion is being used as an excuse to persecute. If their religion somehow dissolved, they would find other reasons to persecute the homosexuals.

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

I'm not entirely convinced of that, because I don't see the benefit to most of these communities in continuing the bigotry. Unless it is community strength and togetherness through hate of the kind that you see in the KKK and Neo-Nazi communities. And I'm being serious.

 

[Westaway]

By your logic left-handed people and blonds are "abnormal".

Yes, exactly, they are. That's what I was saying. Homosexuals are an extreme minority and by that definition "abnormal".

 

[Queen Michael]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Doesn't make logical sense. Because the idea that "some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth" means that we need to answer where that intelligence came from to truly know where life came from. Otherwise, we might as well ask the question "Where did we come from?" with "From our parents."

 

[Westaway]

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

No, don't burden the West with that accusation of being the only bigots. Whites are not the only anti-gay communities by a long shot.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, because I don't see the benefit to most of these communities in continuing the bigotry. Unless it is community strength and togetherness through hate of the kind that you see in the KKK and Neo-Nazi communities. And I'm being serious.

I never said it was beneficial that they maintain the discrimination. I was simply saying that the anti-homosexual sentiment is so engrained into the social psyche that even if their current excuse for the discrimination were to disappear ("Jesus hates gays") then another institution would replace the old one with the same ideas ("Supreme Leader hates gays")

 

[Ratty]

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

No, don't burden the West with that accusation of being the only bigots.

Never said they were, you're just being very vague in your posts so I am trying to pen down what you mean.

I never said it was beneficial that they maintain the discrimination. I was simply saying that the anti-homosexual sentiment is so engrained into the social psyche that even if their current excuse for the discrimination were to disappear ("Jesus hates gays") then another institution would replace the old one with the same ideas ("Supreme Leader hates gays")

And I disagree, Neta has reminded me of a comic strip which succenctly demonstrates why.

I'm a cultural materialist, from what I can see most if not all aspects of culture serve a material function (EVEN THOUGH that function may not be readily apparent without study) or they die out. It's just a matter of how many generations it takes them to die. Human society is, in a sense, just a coping mechanism against environmental pressures. Everything in a culture is an expression and extension of that mechanism, if a piece of the machine ceases to (serve a) function it will eventually be shaken and fall off.

 

[Queen Michael]

You know what bugs me the most about this request? That creationist shows about the biblical origin story of the world usually don't include a mention of how the vast majority of scientist consider it evident that the biblical story is pure fiction.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Again, many of these claims are completely false. First off, the scientific method was created by theistic philosophers in ancient Greece. Secondly, the Christians and Muslims the two curators of literacy and culture after the fall of Rome.

No they aren't. Again, the fact that religious people created the scientific method and were responsible for literacy and culture does NOT prove that religion was necessary. All it proved is that everybody and his mother were religious back then and SOMEBODY had to do it, and religious people were the only ones available to actually do it. In fact, until the scientific method was created there wasn't anything but religion to explain anything. If religion never existed then those things would have happened anyway, they were an inevitability that would have happened regardless. These things would have happened even faster without religion as humanity would have been needed to explain the world around us and would have lacked made up stories to explain it all to hold them over.

Saying that religion held humanity back and squashed any attempt at "science" is false.

Oh? Then explain to me why any attempts to contradict religious doctrine were met with hostility if not deadly force throughout human history. Explain to me why there are people lobbying right now to get science out of the classroom and religion into it and there always have been. Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I will not argue the merits of religion, but the fact remains that for the majority of the time leading up until the enlightenment people were not being "thrown in jail" for being "atheist".

Yes they were, and all it takes is a basic knowledge of history to prove that. Galileo was probably the most well known example of someone who was thrown in jail for saying that the earth revolved around the sun because it contradicted scripture and as a result it wasn't until decades after his death that this fact became widely known. Galileo just one of countless people who had that happen. One could not be openly atheist in those times without facing persecution, thus there were very few people who were brave enough to actually admit it and face punishment for it. It didn't happen a majority of the time because everybody was both indoctrinated to accept religious doctrine blindly from birth and too scared shitless of being punished for a long long time for it to be possible.

The idea that irreligious scientists are better than religious scientists again is laughable.

One can be religious and a scientist, however this requires one to be in massive denial of the truth and it colors any endeavor one makes to advance science. Being a religious scientist means one has bias that affects the hypotheses one makes, the tests to prove those hypotheses, and the conclusions one draws from those tests. Without religion a scientist has one less bias to get in the way of any advancements to science they make.

Religion and science are the antithesis of each other, you can't have more of one without having less of the other.

 

[Chessrook44]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Doesn't make logical sense. Because the idea that "some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth" means that we need to answer where that intelligence came from to truly know where life came from. Otherwise, we might as well ask the question "Where did we come from?" with "From our parents."

Ah, but here's the beauty of it... "A higher intelligence" could mean EITHER Aliens (Which begs that question) OR God (Which does not, and satisfies some creationists. SOME.). And while yes, we don't know where they come from, knowing where WE come from is a start at least. Something to jump off from.

 

[Westaway]

No they aren't.

Yes, they were.

Again, the fact that religious people created the scientific method and were responsible for literacy and culture does NOT prove that religion was necessary.

Correct, I never said it was necessary.

All it proved is that everybody and his mother were religious back then and SOMEBODY had to do it,

No, they didn't. The barbarians really couldn't have been bothered about everything the Romans and Greeks wrote.

and religious people were the only ones available to actually do it.

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In fact, until the scientific method was created there wasn't anything but religion to explain anything. If religion never existed then those things would have happened anyway, they were an inevitability that would have happened regardless. These things would have happened even faster without religion as humanity would have been needed to explain the world around us and would have lacked made up stories to explain it all to hold them over.

Religion WAS their way of explaining it. Tribesmen don't see leaves turning red in the fall and decide to do several experiments on them.

Oh? Then explain to me why any attempts to contradict religious doctrine were met with hostility if not deadly force throughout human history. Explain to me why there are people lobbying right now to get science out of the classroom and religion into it and there always have been.

Because zealots have always existed and whatever lobbying they do to keep science away from their students in the Southern United States will have no impact whatsoever on the greater scientific community.

Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I'd love some citations on this claim in particular.

Yes they were, and all it takes is a basic knowledge of history to prove that. Galileo was probably the most well known example of someone who was thrown in jail for saying that the earth revolved around the sun because it contradicted scripture and as a result it wasn't until decades after his death that this fact became widely known. Galileo just one of countless people who had that happen. One could not be openly atheist in those times without facing persecution, thus there were very few people who were brave enough to actually admit it and face punishment for it. It didn't happen a majority of the time because everybody was both indoctrinated to accept religious doctrine blindly from birth and too scared shitless of being punished for a long long time for it to be possible.

You seriously need to brush up on your history. Galileo's imprisonment was FAR more complex than simply "He disagrees with us!"
I'll start you off though by pointing out the Copernicus had already made heliocentrism fairly well known, that Galileo was funded by the church (and Medici's) and that geocentrism was actually most widely accepted because of Aristotle, not the Bible.

One can be religious and a scientist, however this requires one to be in massive denial of the truth

Wrong.

and it colors any endeavor one makes to advance science. Being a religious scientist means one has bias that affects the hypotheses one makes, the tests to prove those hypotheses, and the conclusions one draws from those tests. Without religion a scientist has one less bias to get in the way of any advancements to science they make.

Incontestably false. My father is the head of a genetic research institute and at least half of his scientists are religious. I personally know one Muslim, one Baptist and two Buddhists that work for him. He has never in his entire career enccountered a religious scientist who's religious views have in anyway affected their work.

Religion and science are the antithesis of each other, you can't have more of one without having less of the other.

You can have faith in one aspect of life and look to science for other's. In many ways they may contradict, but in reality they are not mutually exclusive.

Even all this is reliant on the idea that somehow science is "the one truth!" that will lead humanity to its perfect irreligious utopia. It won't.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.