scratch-mark

Teach Literal Creationism in Public Schools NOW!

Let’s just cede the entire public school system to the Fundamentalist Christians.

…the state of Colorado, apparently, still wants to live in the 15th century: Just a few days ago, a bill was introduced into my home state’s legislature that would allow teachers “to miseducate students about evolution, whether by teaching creationism as a scientifically credible alternative or merely by misrepresenting evolution as scientifically controversial.”

We have the Internet and it’s for smart, thinking people, including inquisitive kids. Creationism is effectively dead, and it’s time to stop kicking the corpse. Let it go. Let them teach their kids to be ignorant, to be rightly laughed at for their ignorance.

More Young People Are Moving Away From Religion, But Why?

One-fifth of Americans are religiously unaffiliated — higher than at any time in recent U.S. history — and those younger than 30 especially seem to be drifting from organized religion. A third of young Americans say they don’t belong to any religion. [emphasis added]

Those kinds of numbers and the rate of change is a tide swell. Ignorance, lies…fantasies taken for literal…always lose eventually. In the Information age, it accelerates. Parents and pastors are about the last place young people go for valid information, anymore—as it should justly be, because they have defaulted on their responsibility by teaching them their fear-based bullshit superstitions, instead of hard-nosed reality. Now, thank His Noodlyness, with just a little effort, anyone—kids too—can find far better and more accurate information on the Internet than their parents, pastors, and in some cases even teachers, possess on most topics. This is a wonderful thing.

Losing Our Religion: The Growth Of The ‘Nones’

This week, Morning Edition explores the “nones” — Americans who say they don’t identify with any religion. Demographers have given them this name because when asked to identify their religion, that’s their answer: “none.”

In October, the Pew Research Center released a study, ‘Nones’ on the Rise, that takes a closer look at the 46 million people who answered none to the religion question in 2012. According to Pew, one-fifth of American adults have no religious affiliation, a trend that has for years been on the rise.

You can go to the link at Pew and really dig into the mounds of data, but even a cursory look will demonstrate to you that just about no matter how you slice the data…by ethnicity, gender, income, politics, education, age etc., etc….people are getting smarter and smarter, dumping stupid, ineffective superstition for reality in real numbers and as a trend. Eventually a tipping point will be reached and the trend will accelerate more and more. It will someday be completely unfashionable to be seen as so ignorant as to believe literally in a religion. Fun, wholsome traditions will likely remain—rather like lots of atheist Jews practice today.

Alright, now for some graphs and data.

religion gallup none
See the acceleration? Means you’re toast, Bible Thumping Wankers

 

religion pew gender
C’mon Womyn, before I go all misogynist on you.

 

religion pew age
Shit, even the geezers trending up.

 

nones exec 7
Doom. Soon there will be more “Nuns” than Catholics. 🙂

nones exec 6
Slam Dunk Data!

 

How wonderful. I knew I was solidly on the right track when I literally raised my middle finger to the heavens in October of 1990 and never looked back for a second. My life improved immediately and immensely.

Kids: If your parents, relatives, or friends profess belief in any sort of supernatural being (God, Jesus, Allah, Ghosts) or places (heaven, hell, purgatory) they are not dealing in reality and no matter how wonderful they may be as parents, family, or friends and no matter how good their intentions, they are giving you false, primitive information based on superstition and ignorance that will likely make you uncompetitive, and potentially, a laughing stock in this modern, increasingly informed and critical world.

Tell ’em you love ’em, but then go get your information elsewhere. And kids? You’re not the only one (see: Kids Without God).

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

61 Comments

  1. Joshua on January 22, 2013 at 21:45

    Nice graphs, have you checked this one out lately?

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 22:23

      Yea, Joshua, have played with various iterations of those trends from time to time. It is interesting. I think the two are far to general and disparate to be correlated in the large (not that I think you’re suggesting it), but it does kinda signify something to me that at root derives from the same mindset and critical thinking.



  2. Bill on January 22, 2013 at 15:06

    All of this pathetic focus on christians detracts from how the evil of islam is progressively, day by day, encroaching and diminishing the western way of life. When it comes to the crunch, we will need those delusioned christians to put their lives on the line against the islamists. You know I’m right, Richard. Please just tell it as it really will be. Otherwise we are all fucked. Sadly I think we already are, especially in Europe.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 15:08

      Well of course I think Islam is just as ridiculous Bill, potentially more dangerous and all that, and I’m a huge fan of Pat Condel. But I don’t really share the view that it’s Armageddon. I just don’t see it.



    • VW on January 22, 2013 at 16:41

      “You know I’m right, Richard. Please just tell it as it really will be. Otherwise we are all fucked.”

      So you’re saying that if Richard doesn’t “tell it as it really will be,” then we’re all fucked?

      Do your dogs pictured there with you realize that they have a fucking wingnut for an owner?



    • Rocco Privetera on January 23, 2013 at 07:55

      I’m sure all the people being killed by christians a few hundred years ago thought the same thing about christians.



  3. Kyle Bennett on January 22, 2013 at 16:56

    “f your parents, relatives, or friends profess belief in any sort of state (democracy, republic, minarchy) or government services (schools, finance, safety) they are not dealing in reality and no matter how wonderful they may be as parents, family, or friends and no matter how good their intentions, they are giving you false, primitive information based on superstition and ignorance that will likely make you uncompetitive, and potentially, a laughing stock in this modern, increasingly informed and critical world.”

    It’s true this way also. That’s why I like your idea of merging them.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 17:01

      One thing at a time, Kyle! I just got done with a 9-part series on that. 🙂

      Think different. Always loved that Apple slogan.



  4. Cow on January 22, 2013 at 17:15

    Cow have to cringe for human when I see Obama sworn in with not 1 but 2 special bible! It get lot of press and ‘newscaster’ and ‘journalist’ speak of it as so moving and such big honor!

    Why nobody is like, “OMG! Our leader swearing oath on zombie jesus and sky gods and angels and shit! Holy fuck!”

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 17:23

      Those are Democrat Bibles. Magical Bibles. Only Democrat Bibles can transcend the power of the Separation of Church & State (memo to Tolkien).



  5. Earl Cannonbear on January 22, 2013 at 17:23

    Look around you.

    Everything you see.

    The immense unfathomable majesty of the heavens… the mind boggling intricate nano-technology of the cell.

    Men spend their entire lives and all their mental energy but the mysteries only deepen.

    With every new scientific discovery, with every new beautiful and elegant equation describes it, with every question answered nature asks ten new ones we never imagined possible.

    Sure, it’s all just one big fluke.

    Life and the universe are just random fluctuations.

    Believe that if you want.

    Who’s naive?

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 17:24

      Earl

      Naive? Explanation by appeal to mystery.



    • Gordon Shannon on January 22, 2013 at 17:57

      “Life and the universe are just random fluctuations.”

      False dichotomy. Our options aren’t design or chance. They are design or causation.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 18:10

      Good call, Gordon. Reminded my of the 747 arising randomly and spontaneously out of a junkyard.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 18:24

      Why does complexity of universe, random and/or not random, require sky gods? Why would any rational human brain, which know it can only perceive about 2 billionths of known energies, ever deign to think it have answer to universe? Of course is a mystery! Humans is young, brash little species. Answers to universe not to be found in you limited noggin, and certainly not to be found in you limited noggin’s creation myths.

      That said, Cow total understand why you big fat brains has desire to come up with and evolve creation myths to resolve untenable questions that self awareness bring.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 18:31

      You’re outted. No cow would ever use the word “deign.”



    • Gordon Shannon on January 23, 2013 at 10:05

      If humans are so stupid, why think that their answer “God exists” has any credence?

      The best arguments for God’s existence came from Aquinas, and they don’t work.



    • Kris on January 22, 2013 at 19:04

      Every culture in history has had a belief in the divine to explain a world which is not understood. What you are describing is no different. Why would your god be any less imaginary than the pagan gods of ancient times?



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 19:19

      Kris

      It’s very simple. Earl lives in a time and place and is happy to live out his life, as it were, saluting to the conventional wisdom. He’s probably here because some of that CW worked against him and he recognized it, did something about it.

      But we still live in a world where a body can be perfectly pristine and a mind, a sewer of regurgitation.

      But it’s progress, actually.



    • Kyle Bennett on January 22, 2013 at 19:13

      “Sure, it’s all just one big fluke.”

      The universe was not designed to be perfect for us, we evolved as what was possible given the way the universe is. That’s the problem with being the ones who get to ask such questions: we assume we are the premise instead of the conclusion.

      Any universe in which we were possible, and there are probably an infinity of possibilities, would seem equally wondrous. The ones in which we are not possible – also an infinitude of possibilities – would also seem equally wondrous, if there were any “us” to do the wondering.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 19:25

      “we assume we are the premise instead of the conclusion.”

      Human consciousness is presumptive. We have to understand that and get beyond it.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 19:41

      Yes, I always say to friend who think it some kind of amazing hand-of-god miracle when some serendipitous thing happen: “Fate only work in reverse!” Even most mundane event have miraculous chain of circumstances that lead up to it.



    • Earl Cannonbear on January 22, 2013 at 20:06

      You guys are making my point.

      Of course every culture in history comes to the same conclusion. It is inescapable.

      Either the universe or the multiverse (hypothetical, unobservable, untestable mythical universe making machine ) is finely tuned or it’s a fluke.

      And if it’s a fluke then why can we study it and understand it?

      If it’s a fluke why isn’t it chaotic? Why are there coherent and beautiful mathematical laws that govern it?

      If it’s a random accident why does it preoccupy and challenge the finest minds?

      A tornado blowing through a junk yard and coincidentally assembling a 747 is infinitely more probable than a universe popping into existence for no reason with the exact conditions required for energy and matter to coalesce into galaxies, stars and planets hospitable to life and self aware creatures.

      It truly takes a superior intellect to convince one’s self that evidence of a purposeful design is an illusion.

      Naive is a bit condescending. I should have said incorrigibly presumptuous.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 20:13

      “every culture in history comes to the same conclusion.”

      Demonstrably false

      “It is inescapable.”

      False. Ancient Judaism did not believe in life after death. Look it up.

      The rest of your silly presumptions are really not worth any time responding to. Others can, should they have a bit of mercy on you.

      In the meantime, keep explaining things by appealing to how you see them as inexplicable.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 20:57

      If not our universe had ‘pop’ into existence, and something else had, then that would be equally miraculous, yes? Human not gonna turn out to be most miraculous thing in universe, sorry if this burst any bubbles.

      Just because ‘finest minds’ of human (which incredibly limited) can make some observation about universe does not mean anything human can conceive is remotely what would be accurate. Universe no give a fuck about our equations and expectations. Universe no even care about time or gravity in lot of cases.

      Why you want so much for to have a maker? You think it give you more meaning? You think it mean you get the everlasting life after you arrangement of atoms degrade? You think it give you more signifance than being just ‘what happened’. I understands if you desire any of this things. For Cow, simple tiny journey from stardust to stardus within infinite Mandelbrot set of creativity that is universe is equally poingant.



    • Sean on January 22, 2013 at 21:01

      A tornado blowing through a junk yard and coincidentally assembling a 747 is infinitely more probable than a universe popping into existence for no reason with the exact conditions required for energy and matter to coalesce into galaxies, stars and planets hospitable to life and self aware creatures.

      I must be getting old, I remember when religious apologists simply tried to compare a tornado assembling a 747 to the apparent impossibility of the evolution of the eye. Now they’ve moved on to using arguments and objections from the anthropic principle. Although I suspect this guy is more of a troll than an actual religious apologist.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 21:34

      60% of America (including you leader) and much more % of rest of world still believe in they sky gods. I not think it make them troll or stupid or such, is just they no ready to let go of this. Human not that evolve. Just because few of you get beyond this very trenchant primal mythology and is on outskirt of bell curve, it can no be expect for rest of world to join you there. Is probable not gonna happen, and certain not gonna happen in you life time.



    • FrankG on January 23, 2013 at 06:33

      I don’t know that Obama really does believe in the supernatural but it does seem to be a sad fact of political life in the USA that: he would have had no chance of being elected had he stated he did not believe.

      I also think that the country’s founding fathers would be deeply disturbed by that particular situation… if their own stardust had not already been shared out amongst the rest of the universe 🙂



    • Elenor on January 24, 2013 at 06:11

      “If it’s a fluke why isn’t it chaotic? Why are there coherent and beautiful mathematical laws that govern it?”

      Because if there were NOT mathematical laws that ALLOWED for it (for us), it (we) would not have occurred. Occurrence (existence) does not mean planning (or a lack of chaos). This is ‘reasoning from conclusion’ (or whatever it’s called): it’s foolish to think “WE exist, and therefore all of existence was leading to us.” No! We’re just the latest, random, short-lived mutation that will strut and fret and then be heard no more. We have no more ‘claim’ on significance (except in our own minds) than a paramecium or trilobite or cypress!

      (Compare it to a child, deciding its parent’s divorce is its fault: it MAKES UP what seems like a workable theory for why this thing happened (“to it”). That theory does not mean the child IS why it happened; it’s merely the explanation that the child must make up some sort of rationale to explain what has happened so it can make sense of the world.)



    • Joshua on January 22, 2013 at 21:30

      So Earl, are you claiming that the same entity that did all that proceeded to:
      -Create beings and then tell them NOT to do something that is part of their very nature to do
      -Kill children for teasing one of its prophets
      -Destroy entire cities because some of the residents were using their bodies in ways it did not like
      -Command one of its most loyal subjects to kill his own child as a test of his loyalty
      -Deny another of its most loyal subjects entry to the promised land because he screwed up some directions
      -Realize that it screwed up with human beings, then use a ridiculously complicated magic spell to absolve its creations of their sins, but it only works if they BELIEVE in it

      Your god is either impotent, nonexistent, or omnipotent and an asshole. In any case, it is not worthy of my respect.



  6. Cow on January 22, 2013 at 18:56

    Cow always has been an open omni-sexual, Richard.
    Also, lot of cows say ‘deign.’ Yeah, they have vocabulary, Richard. Jesus, is like you never talk to cows or something.

    • Sean on January 22, 2013 at 20:29

      Richard is well-known for his othering of cows and cowness. He really needs to attend a bovine sensitivity training seminar, but he’s too bull-headed for that.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 20:38

      Yes, Richard also recently use term ‘cowering’ which is clear hate speech and defamations against bovines. He obvious have something against cows. I guessing was love affair go wrong.



    • Sean on January 22, 2013 at 20:49

      Seriously? He wrote that? It’s like he’s from a different era, nay epoch.

      I agree, there must be a lot of repressed guilt and shame behind his cowcism, forbidden love is the sweetest.



    • Cow on January 22, 2013 at 21:25

      Title of Richard’s recent post was “Laughing at Cowering Morons Afraid of Gays .” He no even go on Oprah to issue apologies to bovine community and pander for national media coverage of his terrible shame.



    • Sean on January 22, 2013 at 21:46

      A public apology is a must, and I can’t think of anyone who can represent the bovine and human communities better than Oprah.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 22:25

      Ok, I give up. Get me a spot on Oprah and I’ll publicly apologize to anyone I might ever have offended.



  7. Andrew Ryan on January 22, 2013 at 19:34

    I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky. But there is something more powerful in each of us, a combination of our efforts, a great chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interests that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you differently either has his hand in your pocket or a pistol to your neck.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 22, 2013 at 20:08

      Pretty well stated, Andrew. I like it.



    • Kris on January 23, 2013 at 07:06

      We are god. It is our egos that drive us to carry on but also cause us to feel that there has to be more… we can’t just die and return to the earth like a plant that feeds the soil with its decomposition to give life again. The clues are there in scriptures except that organized religion has blown things so out of proportion. Ever heard prophet teachings that god is love, god is within you, god helps those that help themselves, your spirit (energy) will live on forever? Take them literally because its that simple and nothing more, because YOU are god.

      “But it is only when we struggle in our own interests that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide.”
      I do believe we have a common thread, common goals and have the potential for a higher level of communication but not much different than animals who work together to procure their existence.

      Out of curiosity, I went with a friend recently to see the Dalai Lama. His message: “Let only your brain and your heart guide you. And the scripture… kindness. Do not follow organized religion.”



    • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 08:36

      Pretty much where I am, Kris. But rather than call them “scriptures,” I call it ancient wisdom (which really, reflects the message you send here). I also tend to say, “you are your own god.”



    • Andrew Ryan on January 23, 2013 at 10:10

      Kris, forgoing the spooky language and whatever authority you fancy giving to the Dalai Lama, you seem to have your head in the right place – on the cusp, but in the general vicinity.

      A worm looks up and sees the face of God, but look around … it’s a regular convention of worms in here. They all had mothers, fathers, people who loved them. They got married, fucked their wives. What makes us think we’re any different?

      Same as the worm, it is our biology that drives us, regardless of what superfluous monikers we label it as.

      Yes Richard, even in a book of lies you sometimes find truth.



  8. 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 04:19

    I would be the first to say one should not believe in something for the sake of believing in something whether it is true or not. The point is of course whether objective truth exists and if we can know it. But that is another story altogether.

    I do like the following paragraph, which gives one something to think about:

    “Thinkers hostile to theism have sought every means imaginable to provide a rational alternative to the notion of an eternal, self-existent deity. Some have argued for an eternal universe, though with great difficulty. Usually the temporal beginning of the universe is granted, but with a reluctance to assign its cause to an eternal, self-existent being. The usual alternative is some sort of self-creation, which, in whatever form it takes, falls into irrationality and absurdity. To assert the self-creation of anything is to leap into the abyss of the absurd because for something to create itself, it would have had to exist before it existed to do the job. It would have had to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. Some speak of self-creation in terms of spontaneous generation, which is just another name for self-creation. This would involve the logically impossible event of something coming from nothing. If there ever was a time when absolutely nothing existed, all there could possibly be now is nothing. Even that statement is problematic because there can never be nothing; if nothing ever was, then it would be something and not nothing.” – R.C. Sproul. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/beginning/

    • FrankG on January 23, 2013 at 06:02

      So where did “the creator” come from? Your argument falls off into infinite regression 🙂

      or put another way… “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 06:42

      Well no not really, as the Biblical definition of God (YHWH), is that he is self-existent, non-created.

      I fully agree that this pushes the argument back, but the point is that either we have to say that the universe has always existed and is self-existent, or that the origin of the universe is; which in the context of the Bible is God. The universe never claims to be self-existent, God does. So one can within reason and logic follow the argument that for something to exist (that is not being self-existent) there has to be something before it from which it comes.

      I think we are all open to the possibility that the universe has always existed, but I suppose it will be a tricky to show that the universe is/was/always been self-existent, never produced but with the potential of producing time, space and matter out of itself. More so the problem of cause and effect. It is not difficult for a God to produce something out of his being and will, it is less easy for a self-existent ‘potential’ to just happen to produce something without an initial cause.

      I am yet to read Lawrence Krauss’ ‘A Universe From Nothing’ which I am hoping addresses some of these pre-universe self-existing ‘potential’ questions.



    • FrankG on January 23, 2013 at 07:02

      Now we go from infinite regression to circular argument “a god could do this otherwise impossible task (or at least “impossible” so far you understand) …therefore there must be a god” …Seriously?

      And you use the bible as your references? Why not any of the other “holy” books… don’t they similarly claim to be the exclusive word of god and the true way? Why accept one as being a superior reference to another.. except perhaps due to the accident of where you were born?

      I trust in the scientific method of inquiry.. my decisions are based on evidence-based proof, not on blind faith. I don’t believe in anything supernatural — from ghosts to gods. The fact that science does not yet have all the answers does not mean I can just make something up that magically explains it all… especially something that has lead to many of the worst crimes against humanity in our history.

      I know many good, kind and decent religious people — my own family is quite devout — but that does not mean they would not be equally moral without a religious framework; based on superstitions and myths.

      I do “good deeds” because I think they are the right thing to do.. not because I fear eternal damnation if I fail to do them.



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 07:15

      No, I was simply stating that in the context of the information I know most about in regards to theology the god YHWH declares that he is self-existent, non-created.

      It doesn’t matter which “who/what” we are talking about here as we flesh-out the logical argument but simply that “something” has to have always existed and be self-existent non-created; be that the universe or “something else” that produced it.



    • FrankG on January 23, 2013 at 07:24

      Not at all… because we are limited to using terms which describes the environment in which we primates have evolved. This does not give you a carte blanche to make sweeping conclusions about existence or nothingness.

      We struggle with concepts like quantum physics which are really hard for humans to conceptualise; given the limitations of our faculties, and yet theoretically at least there are convincing arguments for this bizarre reality… where a particle can be in any, all, or no places simultaneously.

      None of this convinces me of a “creator”… that requires a leap of faith rather than one of reason.



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 07:47

      I suppose the question is whether quantum mechanics is within the realm of logic, or that logic is in the realm of quantum mechanics?

      Because the problem still stands that if there was nothing (really nothing) and there has always has been nothing[1], then you cannot have something now. And that we have something now means that there was something.

      A “potential” is not nothing it is something, which I think Krauss’ book talks about: a “potential” existing pre-matter/time/space. But in my mind the logic still stands that something had to exist to produce/cause the “potential” or has always been self-existent, non-produced.

      [1] “been nothing” does not even make sense, since nothing cannot even “be”, but I think you get my point. Nothing is not anything whatsoever.



    • FrankG on January 23, 2013 at 07:54

      Perhaps “in your mind” this had to exist… not in mine.

      Once again: just because I do not fully understand a situation yet does not make it OK for you to fill in the blanks from your imagination.

      I can see I am wasting my time with you.



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 08:18

      Sorry, I think we may be talking past each other.

      I am just appealing to the philosophical expression that “nothing comes from nothing”, and the law of non-contradiction, in that nothing cannot be nothing and something at the same time.

      “It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

      ” It is important, however, to recognize what a physicist may mean by the word nothing. Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is incompatible with the philosophical definition of nothing, since it can be defined by certain properties such as space, and is governed by natural laws. Indeed, many philosophers criticize these physical explanations of how the universe arose from nothing, claiming that they merely beg the question.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing



    • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 08:38

      “but that does not mean they would not be equally moral without a religious framework”

      Atheists have been statistically shown time and again to be one of the least predatory slice of humanity. That’s because being good REALLY matters to us here & now, and some of us don’t believe in magical forgiveness.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 08:50

      “I am just appealing to the philosophical expression that “nothing comes from nothing”, and the law of non-contradiction, in that nothing cannot be nothing and something at the same time.”

      Philosophical “nothing” is not the same as science “nothing.” The Big Bang does not postulate that the Universe arose from nothing, but from _something_, a singularity (whatever that really is). But we can’t see beyond that singularity because there is absolutely no way to, and likely never will be unless somehow, someday, they find a way to detect any remnants of a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang.

      There are also other theories out there (unlike dogmatism). Steady State:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

      Read a book many years ago by physicist Eric Learner: The Big Bang Never Happened.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

      What it all means is I don’t really know and really don’t have the foundation to understand. It also means that I don’t throw my hands in the air and declare that because _I am ignorant_ some magic must have happened.



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 09:08

      “Philosophical “nothing” is not the same as science “nothing.””

      Yes I agree, hence I put the quote from wikipedia on that very point. Sometimes when these conversations happen we need to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

      Yes, the “singularity” or the “Big Crunch” or whatever one would like to call what ever was there that preceded the time/space/matter we can observe (and are yet to observe). The thrust of my thread is simply that I think it is most reasonable to say that there had to be something for something to exist.

      I am not concerned with what one calls “it” per se, but concerned that if we walk down the logical path, “it” would need to be eternal self-existent and non-produced. “It” simply cannot just appear out of nothing (philosophical ‘nothing’).



    • Richard Nikoley on January 23, 2013 at 09:30

      Mash, by bigger historical conundrum is perhaps best juxtaposed in this blog entry from our summer, 2006 Eurotrek.

      https://freetheanimal.com/2006/07/eurotrek_2006_o_1.html

      Get it?



    • Joshua on January 23, 2013 at 06:27

      For the sake of argument, let’s presuppose a “creator.”

      What now? Why do some people insist on worshiping that entity, or trying to guess at its motives? Why would anybody expend any energy at all on behalf of this creator trying to convince other people that it exists? Why would people think that the scribbles of primitive peoples accurately portray the story of this entity and its creation?

      I’m not anti-theist. I don’t have faith that there is no creation entity. I just don’t understand why it matters so much to so many people that there is one. I just don’t care. If there is one, then it is as uncaring of us as we are of non-infectious microbes. Maybe less so.



    • 'Mash on January 23, 2013 at 07:07

      Well it all really depends on the character and nature of this “creator”. The how and why questions of the existence and purpose of things created by the creator flow completely out of who the “creator” is.

      I.e. If this “creator” says that he can be known unambiguously because he has the very ability to communicate who he is to his creation unambiguously, then the possibility is clearly there.

      In the same way if this “creator” decrees that idolatry is the worship of anything of lesser glory than himself (for he is ultimately most worthy of worship above all else), he himself is held by that very same “rule” or he himself would be committing idolatry.

      There are many examples like this which I think are good logical litmus tests on the various definitions of “god”.



    • Elenor on January 24, 2013 at 06:31

      Mash: “Well it all really depends on the character and nature of this “creator”. ”

      So, um, HOW many angels can dance on the head of a pin?!

      (Mash: “If this “creator” says”: So, you know ‘him,’ do yah? Talk to him often? He has said things in front of you? Or, is it that some primitives centuries ago wrote some stuff down, and so you think it THEY were in contact with him?!) {shudder}



    • Galina L on January 23, 2013 at 20:03

      I am not a religious person, but sometimes it feels like there is so much irony in life around(a guy who started to promote running for health benefits in US died at 53, probiotic advocate diet from cancer, religious hypocrite was caught with his pants down) , that it may be appropriate to start believing that our life is ruled by the law of joke.



  9. […] was reflecting on the post I did yesterday about the decline of religion, even in America. You have no idea what I thought about it, but I'll tell you this: had nothing to do with what I […]

  10. Galina L on January 23, 2013 at 19:54

    I live in Florida now where it is very popular to have Jesus as a personal friend. Richard, your graphs about the increasing numbers of “nones” gave me hope that such mass stupidity is on decline. Thank you.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780