Intelligent Design The God Hypothesis

At Newsweek: How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God

Spread the love

Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture, writes:

Headlines lately have not been encouraging for the faithful. A Gallup poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe in God has fallen to 81 percent—a drop of 10 percent over the last decade and an all-time low. This accelerating trend is especially pronounced among young adults. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 18-29 year-olds are disproportionately represented among so-called “nones”—atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated.

Pastors and other religious leaders have attributed this trend to many factors: young people being raised outside the church, an unfamiliarity with liturgy and church culture, even COVID-19.

We found another answer in our national survey to probe the underlying reasons for this growing unbelief: a misunderstanding of science.

Perhaps surprisingly, our survey discovered that the perceived message of science has played a leading role in the loss of faith. We found that scientific theories about the unguided evolution of life have, in particular, led more people to reject belief in God than worries about suffering, disease, or death. It also showed that 65 percent of self-described atheists and 43 percent of agnostics believe “the findings of science [generally] make the existence of God less probable.”

It’s easy to see why this perception has proliferated. In recent years, many scientists have emerged as celebrity spokesmen for atheism. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, the late Stephen Hawking, and others have published popular books arguing that science renders belief in God unnecessary or implausible. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if, at bottom, there is no purpose, no design… nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” Dawkins famously wrote.

God
ISTOCK

Yet, between message and reality, there is a major disconnect. Over the last century, important scientific discoveries have dramatically challenged science-based atheism, and three in particular now tell a decidedly more God-friendly story.

First, scientists have discovered that the physical universe had a beginning. This finding, supported by observational astronomy and theoretical physics, contradicts the expectations of scientific atheists, who long portrayed the universe as eternal and self-existent—and, therefore, in no need of an external creator.

Evidence for what scientists call the Big Bang has instead confirmed the expectations of traditional theists. Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, who helped make a key discovery supporting the Big Bang theory, has noted the obvious connection between its affirmation of a cosmic beginning and the concept of divine creation. “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses…[and] the Bible as a whole,” writes Penzias.

Second, discoveries from physics about the structure of the universe reinforce this theistic conclusion. Since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe are finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations of many independent factors—such as the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe—would have rendered life impossible. Scientists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks Universe,” or what Australian physicist Luke Barnes calls an extremely “Fortunate Universe.”

Not surprisingly, many physicists have concluded that this improbable fine-tuning points to a cosmic “fine-tuner.” As former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.

Newsweek

180 Replies to “At Newsweek: How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    Science has never pointed away from God. Scientists lying about it has. There has never been any evidence to support the denial of God. Any one who claims otherwise is either willfully lying about the lack of evidence being evidence, or willfully ignorant of what a real theory is.

  2. 2
    zweston says:

    I wonder if the black knights of the holy grail are getting warmed up… “I’ve had worse”

  3. 3
    JHolo says:

    Pastors and other religious leaders have attributed this trend [decreased belief in god] to many factors: young people being raised outside the church, an unfamiliarity with liturgy and church culture, even COVID-19.

    Perhaps it is just because children are smart and when they question the existence of god they find the evidence wanting.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Meyer can try to talk his book up all he wants but the evidence has been wanting for over two thousand years and is no better today.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    There isn’t any evidence that nature produced life and its diversity. If there was then Meyer couldn’t say what he does.

    It is NOT our fault that no one can put forth a scientific explanation for our existence that doesn’t include an intelligent designer.

  6. 6
    Caspian says:

    JHolo and Seversky,
    What evidence are you aware of that points away from the existence of God? Or what evidence for God have you sought after but found lacking?

  7. 7
    relatd says:

    JH at 3,

    A human-centered response.

    Galatians 6:7

    “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18

    “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.”

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Caspian/6

    JHolo and Seversky,
    What evidence are you aware of that points away from the existence of God? Or what evidence for God have you sought after but found lacking?

    I was raised a Christian and in my early years believed in the existence of God without question. Roughly when I entered my teens I became increasingly aware of inconsistencies and even contradictions in Biblical accounts to the point where I no longer found it persuasive. I cannot rule out the possibility of a Creator but the burden of proof rests with those who claim there is one. I understand how important their faith is to those who believe in the Christian God but I’m not persuaded such a being exists. I could be wrong but at this point I don’t think I am.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/7

    Galatians 6:7

    “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”

    Are you saying that the Creator of all that is, the God in which you believe, has an ego so fragile that He takes mortal offense at mockery or even doubt in His existence?

    1 Corinthians 1:18

    “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.”

    What message? A mortal body died on the cross but the being who inhabited it for a while was and is immortal. According to your belief He still exists today. Mere humans have no power to harm him let alone destroy Him. He or His father could have put a stop to that trial and execution at any time they chose. So how was it anything other than assort of street theater?

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 9,

    God knows who you are. Again, you make the mistake of reducing God to a human level.

    Isaiah 55:8

    “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.”

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    Or perhaps Kabuki Theater, or Theater of the Absurd…..

  12. 12
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: God knows who you are. Again, you make the mistake of reducing God to a human level.

    Oh joy, we are playing biblical Jeopardy.

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  13. 13
    zweston says:

    The black knights never disappoint…they stick to the dodging of the burden of proof from their ivory tower of ultimate knowledge and faith in “science” to discover a natural reason for something creating itself and random genetic processes to assemble masterpieces far greater than anything man has ever made. I do not have enough faith to be a materialist.

    I think it is interesting that the attacks are usually against christianity and they always want to debate theology…not the scientific evidence.

    Here is all the evidence there is no intelligent designer:

  14. 14
    AaronS1978 says:

    Sev you also made a claim that there is no God based on your unsophisticated analysis of things, which you are also required to provide some burden of proof that there isn’t a God of any kind in existence.

    Your personal opinion doesn’t make your claim correct or the standard

    This is an amateur tactic taught in most debate classes to put your opponent on the defensive and in your control

    They can be right and still lose the debate because you put them on the defensive

    And much like every amateur atheist I’ve met you will simply dismiss any proof presented to you because nothing is good enough, putting your opponent in an endless cycle of trying to prove to you that something exists that you are willfully unwilling to believe as a reality of any kind

    So you know where you can put your “burden of proof” tactic up, right?

    Presenting God too you is like presenting pearls to a swine. It’s waste of time, you wouldn’t understand, and you’ll just scatter the pearls to the mud

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    @11 nice troll @sshole kabuki theater is actually entertaining, your crap is not

  16. 16
    BobRyan says:

    Without God, there are no laws of physics. The laws are designed, not something that randomly comes about.

  17. 17
    Alan Fox says:

    Perhaps it is just because children are smart and when they question the existence of god they find the evidence wanting.

    This was certainly my experience as a kid. My local reality bore no resemblance to the stories I was being told. I also learned to avoid questioning authority figures who often seemed to fall far short of the standards of belief and behaviour they demanded of those under their control. Voicing questions or doubts produced no good outcome but often condescension, mockery, dismissal.

    It occurs to me now some of the more religiously certain commenting in these threads remind me of my childhood.

  18. 18
    BobRyan says:

    The fact remains that design is everywhere. Without design, there is only chaos that does not exist in the universe. The laws of physics are not random, but govern without being able to violate them. To deny God is to deny everything we know to be true.

    Free will does exist. Firemen head into burning buildings and forests every day. Animals run away. Man chooses to go into the danger.

    Energy exists. Can anyone claim something that cannot be created does not exist. Without God, you must say it does not exist, since it cannot be created.

    To deny God is to deny reason. Mind over matter for man does exist. People walk on hot coals on purpose. Animals do not.

    To deny God, denies morality. There is no morality for animals. It is not wrong for chimps to kill chimps, but it is wrong for humans to murder humans. Chimps cannot murder. That is purely under the realm of man.

    Where is the evidence to support anything without God. There is no evidence that exist. Speciation has never been witnessed by anyone. The laws cannot randomly create themselves. Life cannot come from no life.

    To deny God is to deny your own uniqueness in the world. Only man has God-given abilities that are unique to each person. To deny God is to deny writers have a talent for writing.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 4: “Meyer can try to talk his book up all he wants but the evidence (for God) has been wanting for over two thousand years and is no better today.”

    Per unmitigated poppycock. Just from the last 120 years or so, the evidence from modern science has confirmed several major Theistic presuppositions and, in the process, falsified several major Atheistic presuppositions

    In short, Atheistic Naturalism and Theism make, and have made, several major, and contradictory, predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find. These contradictory predictions, and the evidence that is now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either Atheistic Naturalism or Theism were true in their primary presuppositions.

    Here are a few comparisons:

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    defense of all 16 predictions
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15i87oT7IkCI0W0Hxg5mZ_8FP23MG_GTFrR0zvgKH9zU/edit

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of the Atheist’s materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation.

    – In fact, modern science, (particularly with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics), even points us to Christianity as the correct solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

  20. 20
    jerry says:

    It occurs to me now some of the more religiously certain commenting in these threads remind me of my childhood

    You will not find a civil discussion on any thread with those who are 100% certain of their views.

    There is a common phenomenon that I call the 12 o’clock/6 o’clock reaction. Someone sees something basically wrong and their reaction is that the opposite must be best. In the process they never consider that 11:30 or 12:30 may be optimal.

    That is what I am finding with the ID debate. Abhorrence at some religious ideas/people/practices sends people off in an equally incoherent advocacy. That is what sent Darwin off in his wild speculations as truth.

    In Darwin’s case, there was a small bit of truth in his wild speculations. People then glommed onto these inconsequential truths as major dogma, as major as all the religious dogma they objected to.

    In the mean time, truth suffers. And the ironic thing, science which is supposed to support the 6 o’clock position actually supports the 11:45 position.

    Aside: as typical, currently a lot of the energy in on a code/non code that is essentially irrelevant given the bigger question. But as I said, this is typical here.

    People are here to hold forth and constantly tell you the world is round or some other obvious triviality.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Those who sense that there is an improper burden of proof shift gambit backed by selective hyperskepticism at work are correct; especially as these matters have been cogently engaged here at UD over many years, as aspects of the wider issue of design thought.

    First, the issue is not, whether current Evangelical or Catholic etc understandings of God are correct, the issue is first ontological root of reality containing creatures such as ourselves, which constrains possibilities for that root. Thus, we find that logic of being is pivotal, especially as informed by possible worlds speak.

    First, we live in a temporal-causal, thermodynamically constrained world, one that needs to be explained on a causal root. Can that be [quasi-]infinite in the past? No, as a finite stage causal temporal succession cannot traverse the implied transfinite. There is a finitely remote root of reality, root of this and other possible worlds. (This was hammered out across three years of exchanges here at UD.)

    Can there be a retrocausal, circular self causing of the world? No, again, as this would be a world from non being. Non being has no causal powers, and so were there ever utter non-being — the true nothing — such would forever obtain. That also automatically eliminates a world popping up from utter non being. Where, too, the sort of “nothing” being discussed by Krauss et al is in fact not non-being, it is a quantum foam quasi physical world, but one that is implicitly causal-temporal and thermodynamic, so it cannot be the ultimate root, it cannot have had a past without finite limit. Logic of being, constrains being and its considerations are evidence.

    So, we cannot find a transfinite past chain of contingent being, we need a necessary being world root. Where, a contingent being can exist in some possible worlds but would not in others, due to want of antecedent causal factors. A necessary being is part of the fabric for any world to exist and has no dependence on onward antecedent enabling, on/off causal factors. If you doubt, consider the simple case, try to imagine a world without two-ness in it, or one where it ceases to be or could cease to be. Two, will rapidly show itself to be a necessary entity, framework to any distinct possible world.

    Going beyond, while the evident design epitomised by finding in the cell coded strings bearing algorithmic code for protein assembly can be explained on a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al, the fine tuning of the cosmos to support c-chem aqueous medium cell based life points to extra cosmic, deeply knowledgeable and powerful designer capable of causing worlds. And the fine tuning evidence is a significant consideration for any serious thinker.

    So, the real issue is, what is the finitely remote, necessary being world root adequate to account for our world and us in it. Where — just to be able to credibly argue, warrant and know — we must be responsible, rational, significantly free and so morally governed creatures. This chain of reasoning leads to [parallel thread] there being first principles, first duties and first law built into our nature, which as first principles, are branch on which we all sit first truths, self evident and inescapable on pain of utter, instant absurdity.

    To wit:

    1st – to truth,
    2nd – to right reason,
    3rd – to prudence [including warrant],
    4th – to sound conscience,
    5th – to neighbour; so also,
    6th – to fairness and
    7th – to justice
    [ . . .]
    xth – etc.

    An easy way to see this, is to observe how, invariably [we have seen this for many months here at UD] objectors are forced to appeal to these principles just to lend their objections against such somewhat persuasive. Self-defeating.

    So, now, we have a bill of requisites for a causally adequate world root: enormously powerful to explain a world, high knowledge to design a fine tuned world fitted for C-Chem aqueous medium cell based life, necessary being to be a root of reality, inherently good and utterly wise to ground rational, responsible, significantly free and morally governed creatures — us — in a post Euthyphro, post Hume world.

    In this context, we raise generic ethical theism and its key actor, God as serious candidate necessary being who fulfills these requisites. Notice, no one has a good argument that God is not a serious candidate necessary being. But, instantly, that exposes the burden of warrant shift game: a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being as a square circle is, or else is possible of being thus present in at least one world and by being fabric to reality, actual in all worlds.

    In this light, atheism and hard agnosticism are found wanting, as they have no good reason to reject the possibility of God as a being. The former preferred argument, evil, collapsed decades ago i/l/o Plantinga and long since was not able to account for the good.

    If someone disagrees, let him or her advance a convincing reason as to why the God of ethical theism is impossible of being: _______

    Prediction, that blank is and will remain unfilled. Prove me wrong, if you dare and can.

    Going further, such logic of being and world root considerations now point to a framework to understand God, as the One who is the inherently good, utterly wise creator of this and all worlds, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of our loyalty and responsible, reasonable service in light of our evident, morally governed nature.

    This picture of God is instantly recognisable from Hebraic and Christian theology informed by scripture, and is articulated through systematic theology. As to direct warrant for the gospel, that pivots on the prophesied, witnessed by 500, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, serious candidate messiah. Such an onward debate does not properly belong here at UD, but there are many places readily accessible on the Internet where that can be explored. Brief remarks and links are enough for here.

    So, it seems the claim that there is little or no evidence that warrants belief in God is a selectively hyperskeptical exaggeration of the actual balance on the merits.

    Which, Seversky, a long time commenter here at UD must know.

    KF

  22. 22
    chuckdarwin says:

    Noticeably absent from Meyer’s explanations for the decline in religiosity in the US is the role of religion, in particular, Christianity, itself. One can hardly blame young Americans for eschewing an institution wracked with scandal, bigotry, greed and hypocrisy. In survey after survey it is shown that young Americans are significantly more tolerant than prior generations, including their parents, on gender equality, LGBTQ equality, racial equality, non-marital sex, abortion, birth control–the list is almost endless–all issues upon which Christianity is or has been on the wrong side of history.

    Meyer’s bogyman, science, no doubt has historically played a role in the decline of belief, but I think his (and his colleagues at DI) obsession with the influence of science is grossly overstated.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, different from or significantly worse than any other longstanding institution with a history of at least a century or two — most of which, are not therefore scorned as discredited? I would suggest instead that the first issue is loss of regard for foundational truth, leading to living in light of reality. Then, secondly, self-defeating scientism — as opposed to real science — has been promoted as monopolising knowledge and thirdly radical hyperskeptical secularist humanism has been established as anti-church, leading to marginalisation and increasingly slander laced scapegoating and demonisation of the despised other. Meanwhile, the on the ground reality continues, largely unreported: responding to God i/l/o the gospel . . . which is still well-warranted, thank you . . . is life-rescuing and positively transformative, also materially contributing to the socio-cultural capital that buttresses lawful, constitutional democracy. Should the radical secularists prevail, the BATNA of lawfulness will erode leading to crisis and collapse into lawless ideological oligarchy. Of this, there are already all too many signs that should long since have been heeded. KF

    PS, as for the now usual shopping lists of fashionable disordered and often seriously health damaging or outright dangerous behaviours and habits, their promotion is a sign of breakdown of core moral knowledge due to ill warranted ideologies that have now reached the point of promoting confusion about the result of the XY chromosome sex determining system. A sign of our intellectual and moral breakdown.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, the number one sign of moral and intellectual breakdown is the promotion of the ongoing slaughter of our living posterity, now amounting to 1.4+ billion globally, rising at another million per week, across 40+ years. Blood guilt is of course the most corrupting single influence, worse than mere greed or sensualism. If anyone cannot get this one right — there is a fundamental and self evident right to life without which there are no other rights, that undermines associated thought, through the crooked yardstick effect.

  25. 25
    JHolo says:

    CD: Noticeably absent from Meyer’s explanations for the decline in religiosity in the US is the role of religion, in particular, Christianity, itself</I

    Based on my own experience and observations, I would agree with you.

    When I was young, I didn’t “know” any LGBQ” individuals. Not because they didn’t exist, but because they kept hidden because of the persecution and stigmatization they would suffer if they made their sexuality known. And this persecution and stigmatization can be laid squarely at the steps of the various churches.

    Things started to change with regard to religion when the women’s movement pointed out the blatant misogynistic teachings of Christianity, and when LGBQ became more open and started fighting for the rights and benefits of society that the rest of us enjoy.

    Once the LGBQ became more visible we all realized that they are the same as the rest of society with regard to their goals, desires, values, etc. and more and more people are questioning the church’s role in their persecution over the centuries. A questioning of their religious teachings is a natural outcome.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    “Things started to change with regard to religion when the women’s movement pointed out the blatant misogynistic teachings of Christianity, and when LGBQ became more open and started fighting for the rights and benefits of society that the rest of us enjoy.”

    And now that those repressive shackles of Christianity are finally thrown off, by golly, now we don’t even know what a women actually is! 🙂

    What Is A Woman (Dr. Forcier interview)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOK8xPTcbYk

    Of course, in reality, denying the reality of what a woman actually is is a giant step backwards for women rights,,, but hey,, everybody knows that those misogynistic Christians, (and especially Republicans), never did anything right for women,,, right???,, right???

    Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women – 2005
    Excerpt: The Low Status of Women in Jesus’ Day
    Some feminists charge that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church are anti-female and horribly oppressive to women. Does God really hate women? Did the apostle Paul disrespect them in his New Testament writings? In this article we’ll be looking at why Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to women, with insights from Alvin Schmidt’s book How Christianity Changed the World.{1}
    “What would be the status of women in the Western world today had Jesus Christ never entered the human arena? One way to answer this question,” writes Dr. Schmidt, “is to look at the status of women in most present-day Islamic countries. Here women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are even barred from driving an automobile. Whether in Saudi Arabia or in many other Arab countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran. . . .{2} This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man’s relationship with his wife. Paul told the Christians in Ephesus, ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.’ And he added, ‘He who loves his wife loves himself.’{3}
    Jesus loved women and treated them with great respect and dignity. The New Testament’s teaching on women developed His perspective even more. The value of women that permeates the New Testament isn’t found in the Greco-Roman culture or the cultures of other societies.
    In ancient Greece, a respectable woman was not allowed to leave the house unless she was accompanied by a trustworthy male escort. A wife was not permitted to eat or interact with male guests in her husband’s home; she had to retire to her woman’s quarters. Men kept their wives under lock and key, and women had the social status of a slave. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and when they grew up they were not allowed to speak in public. Women were considered inferior to men. The Greek poets equated women with evil. Remember Pandora and her box? Woman was responsible for unleashing evil on the world.{4}
    The status of Roman women was also very low. Roman law placed a wife under the absolute control of her husband, who had ownership of her and all her possessions. He could divorce her if she went out in public without a veil. A husband had the power of life and death over his wife, just as he did his children. As with the Greeks, women were not allowed to speak in public.{5}
    Jewish women, as well, were barred from public speaking. The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard.
    Jesus and Women
    Jesus’ treatment of women was very different:,,,
    etc.. etc…
    https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women

    Dinesh D’Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party – 2016
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year.
    The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination.
    Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dinesh-dsouza-the-secret-history-of-the-democratic-party

    One further note, atheists often like to portray Christianity as being a extremely repressive religion that takes away our freedoms, but as someone who has been ‘set free’ from decades of alcoholism and drug abuse, and over a decade of homelessness, I have found Christianity to be extremely liberating. I literally was a ‘slave to sin’ and was ‘set free’ by the truth of Christianity.

    Verse and testimonies

    John 8: 34-36
    Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

    Such Were Some Of You – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKSFPdyH8x4
    “Such Were Some of You” (A Documentary) was inspired by the passage in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that declares that in Jesus’ day there was a population who had been so transformed by their relationship with Him that they were no longer “same-sex attracted” or at the very least, actively homosexual. They had found such a measure of healing from the brokenness and strongholds associated with what we now call homosexuality that they no longer considered themselves homosexual, nor did they act in that way. “Such Were Some of You” features interviews with a “cloud of present-day witnesses” who testify to the same life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. They describe the development of their same-sex attractions, what the gay lifestyle was like, what their conversion process was like, and the various ways that Jesus has brought healing to their broken places. “Such Were Some of You” lays out the facts about healing homosexual confusion and rejoices in the reality that Jesus Christ can heal anyone from anything while providing grace for the journey.

    Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians

    GUESTS – THE EXTENDED INTERVIEWS – videos – Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians
    https://www.restoredhopenetwork.org/such-were-some-of-you

  27. 27
    doubter says:

    As usual, the materialists/atheists carefully avoid arguing the science of ID (because of course they will lose), and instead focus on the narrow Christian doctrinal issues unfortunately espoused by a number of ID proponents. They hope such misdirection techniques (beloved by magicians) will work. Sorry – we see through the sham.

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    ChuckDarwin: One can hardly blame young Americans for eschewing an institution wracked with scandal, bigotry, greed and hypocrisy.

    Or, in fact young people everywhere. My own son has been so appalled by the reporting of child abuse within and covered-up by the Catholic and Anglican church (as reported on the BBC) it’s impossible to get him to see any good in the faith whatsoever. That’s not my fault or the atheists’ fault or the materialists’ fault; that’s the fault of the churches themselves for not policing their own clergy. It’s what is called in England an own goal.

    And no, please don’t tell me how he needs to be better educated regarding all the good the church has done; the church failed its congregations. Many times. They have a lot to answer for. Have they cleaned the stables? Have they put into place measures which will make sure the documented abuse won’t happen again?

    I don’t think this is about faith, it’s about the church. But young people . . . they just think the whole system is corrupt.

    Clean up your own house before you criticise others’.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you just gave why I gave up on the media and chattering classes. The pivotal issues are already there on the table but you have chosen to further enable the rhetoric of polarisation; something much wider than the toxic side track you wish to push. That speaks volumes and we are facing the parable of the ship of state. KF

    PS, Ship of state, a lesson for our time:

    It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)

    Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

    >>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.

    Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]

    The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].

    Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

    Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

    [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.

    [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ –> here we see Plato’s philosopher-king emerging]; for you understand already.

    [Ad.] Certainly.

    [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.

    [Ad.] I will.

    [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [–> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ –> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.

    [Ad.] Precisely so, he said.

    [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [–> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [–> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].

    [Ad.] Yes.

    [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?

    [Ad.] True.

    [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [–> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?

    [Ad.] By all means.

    [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ — > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ –> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [–> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

    (There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

    Down such a road lies civilisation level disaster.

    PPS, BTW, were I to require of you public proof of perfection or silence, would you be able to speak? We have seen good times and bad for many institutions of our civilisation and the message is there is a moral hazard of being human. Which leads to the vital necessity of moral government starting with the very first duties so many have derided, side lined, dismissed or ignored. But that is the only true road to what is doable, responsible reform. Which does not come from polarisation and manipulation.

  30. 30
    JHolo says:

    JVL@28, there is also the negative influence of televangelists fleecing the desperate and gullible by instilling fear. ‘Buy this vial of holy water and your prayers will be answered”. Young people see through this charlatanry, especially when they see loved ones falling for it.

    Young people are also very savvy on the use of social media. They see the unjustified hatred online expressed towards LGBQ in the name of god. They see freedom of religion being used as an argument to deny a marriage licence to a same sex couple, and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for the birth control pill to a 16 year old, and a baker and florist refusing to provide their services for a same sex marriage. And young people are smart enough to realize that these are attempts to force their twisted version of their religion on others.

  31. 31
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    My own son has been so appalled by the reporting of child abuse within and covered-up by the Catholic and Anglican church (as reported on the BBC) it’s impossible to get him to see any good in the faith whatsoever.

    If you are involved in the effort to get him to see some good in the faith, then that is to be commended. But Dad’s skepticism and perhaps even hostility, towards the faith may be a much bigger influence on your son than the grave sins of some of the clergy.
    There are thousands of faithful Christians who attend church and strive to do good for others and work on living a moral life. None of them is happy that some of the clergy have failed to live up to Christian doctrine. But they continue to be faithful because they are grateful to God and they believe in the doctrines handed down from Jesus to the apostles to the Church today.
    They don’t overlook the sins of pastors and they want justice just as much, perhaps more, than anyone. But they stay faithful because they believe Christianity is true, even though some betray the truths and do not live up to the standards.
    In fact, I know some good Catholics who actually suffered abuse from clergy, but these people have not left the Church but remain faithful and ask God to heal them and others. They are incredibly inspiring individuals who I’m privileged to know.
    Wickedness and evil among the priests has been present in the Church since the time of Judas, and among the Sanhedrin who put Christ to death.
    But our faith has to look above and beyond the evil of mankind, to the transcendent good and whatever we can do for justice and redemption.

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    We have a belief in our culture that young persons are wiser than their elders. Supposedly, the 13 year old already has a grasp of ultimate truths and the adults are just cluelessly standing in wonder and awe at the brilliance of the teen-ager. Perhaps many adults just get dumber in life, starting from their peak of wisdom at 13 years old, then it’s all downhill from there.
    But I’ll suggest that children who leave their religion because, supposedly, they’ve discovered that their own moral excellence and wisdom surpasses that of Jesus, the apostles, the fathers and doctors of the church and their teachers today – might be a bit deluded about their own capabilities.
    If kids are leaving the faith it’s not because they are so smart and well-educated that they know more than anyone else.

  33. 33
    Caspian says:

    To Seversky/8,
    You mentioned that you found “inconsistencies and even contradictions in Biblical accounts” that led you to reject the concept of God. Would you be open to sharing some specifics? Thanks.

  34. 34
    relatd says:

    CD at 22,

    Propaganda aimed at the young is usually more effective. So you have no point.
    And let me point out that here, “tolerant” means “let me do what I want,” nothing more.

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    JH at 25,

    You are a devoted follower of the radical feminist nonsense movement. I was there in the 1970s when a small group of women, totally unrelated to the women they were talking to, were trying to convince them that men, all men, were evil and out to use and abuse them. That and pushing contraception and abortion. Hypocrites. Men were evil, but it was OK to have sex with them?

    I spoke to a previously brainwashed young lady outside of an abortion clinic. She thought that it was OK to pick out men and have sex with them. After her abortion, she returned to God. This was followed by having a daughter. This is what happens when people listen to rabid radicals who foam at the mouth about men. Example: Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, had this to say about men: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

  36. 36
    relatd says:

    JH at 30,

    Straight out of the latest LEFTIST CAUSES HANDBOOK. You know what? People have the right to refuse other people in certain situations. And before you quote me a lengthy diatribe from page 38 of the HANDBOOK, let me say this. People have the freedom to practice their religion.

    Like 5 year olds who demand candy, ALL that’s going on here is “Let me do what I want,” AND “WE – meaning Leftists – are going to “normalize” deviant behavior.

    But back to page 38. It’s all about “hate,” right? All about hate. I don’t hate anyone. You have no argument.

    :… force their twisted version of their religion on others.” So what VERSION are YOU talking about? Have you read the Bible? Do you know what it says?

    People can live how they want. Just like the days when I heard “Don’t try to shove your religion down my throat” I suggest you do the same with your twisted views.

  37. 37
    relatd says:

    Matthew 10:32

    “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,”

    Matthew 10:33

    “but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

  38. 38
    AaronS1978 says:

    @33 Sev and Caspian
    I would be very interested in this and I would promise to be very civil about it, it is something that I would love to have a discussion on as long as everybody can promise not to become condescending and cynical and I will happily do the same

  39. 39
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: Propaganda aimed at the young is usually more effective.

    Usually, but not always. I was sent to Sunday School. It obviously was not effective.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    JH that you implicitly equate sunday school with agit prop tells volumes, none of it good. KF

  41. 41
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: You are a devoted follower of the radical feminist nonsense movement.

    If by this you mean that women should not have to “obey” their husbands, then I agree. If by this you mean that women should be afforded the same opportunity and salary for the employment they desire, and are qualified for, I agree. If by this you mean that a woman pregnant because she was raped should be allowed to have an abortion, I agree. If by this you mean that women should not have to tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace in order to keep or advance their careers, I agree. If by this you mean that women do not have to accept physical punishment by their husbands, I agree. If by this you mean that no means no, I agree. If by this you mean that women should have access to effective birth control, I agree. If by this you mean that women are entitled to enjoy sex, the same as a man does, without feeling guilty, I agree.

    Straight out of the latest LEFTIST CAUSES HANDBOOK.

    Sorry, I must have missed that handbook.

    People have the right to refuse other people in certain situations.

    Not when the service is legally available and their employment requires them to provide the service. If they feel that this violates their religious freedoms, they are free to seek other employment.

  42. 42
    JHolo says:

    KF: JH that you implicitly equate sunday school with agit prop tells volumes, none of it good. KF

    I agree. But I don’t think the churches will stop Sunday School.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, slanderer. KF

    PS, Notice, the substantial issues pointed out in 21 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-newsweek-how-science-stopped-backing-atheists-and-started-pointing-back-to-god/#comment-761004 then studiously side stepped in favour of toxic accusations and insinuations. Those are not matks of responsible discussion but of toxically crooked, unjustifiable hostile, injudicious thinking. Let us take due note of the attitudes behind what we have been seeing.

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    JHolo/41

    If by this you mean that women should not have to “obey” their husbands, then I agree. If by this you mean that women should be afforded the same opportunity and salary for the employment they desire, and are qualified for, I agree. If by this you mean that a woman pregnant because she was raped should be allowed to have an abortion, I agree. If by this you mean that women should not have to tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace in order to keep or advance their careers, I agree. If by this you mean that women do not have to accept physical punishment by their husbands, I agree. If by this you mean that no means no, I agree. If by this you mean that women should have access to effective birth control, I agree. If by this you mean that women are entitled to enjoy sex, the same as a man does, without feeling guilty, I agree

    So do I. Well said.

  45. 45
    JHolo says:

    Sev: So do I. Well said.

    Does that mean we are both slanderers? 🙂 The list of superlatives for my CV keeps getting longer with every day I comment here. 🙂

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, contrast your endorsed slander laced strawman with the focal topic and note what has been side stepped at 21. You are in ship of state territory and that you do not instantly see the distortions speaks. BTW, the toll on the worst holocaust in history, the mass killing of living posterity is 1.3 billion plus rising at a million per week. KF

  47. 47
    AndyClue says:

    @JHolo:

    …A questioning of their religious teachings is a natural outcome.

    And that is the point. It is NOT a questioning of god, but rather of the teachings of the self-appointed prophets. It has always been fashionable among the religionists circles to worship the writings and words of humans. We must try to overcome this distructive habit. And I think we can now see the result of this questioning of the false authorities in the advent of intelligent design, gay marriage, and a resistence to the woke craze.

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, attn Sev:

    Your doubling down is sadly revealing and raises questions of confession by projection. It expresses a shocking contempt for the other that, frankly, raises the question, bigotry comparable to racism and the like.

    For, in effect you have chosen to double down on smearing millions of ordinary people going about a well established and largely innocent practice, Christian education in gospel ethics, gospel substance and related frameworks, through Sunday School, etc, of being by implication ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked practitioners of agit prop. This, while studiously side-stepping the outlined substance in 21 above https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-newsweek-how-science-stopped-backing-atheists-and-started-pointing-back-to-god/#comment-761004 that gives the first next level beyond sunday school for kids etc.

    A responsible view would instead have recognised that there are diverse major worldviews, that these can be addressed on comparative difficulties and that the Hebraic-Christian tradition is one of them. Indeed, it is one of the three main sources of our civilisation, the source that is now increasingly marginalised by radical secularists. Where, it is easy to see that such often advocates or is a fellow traveller with self-refuting and indeed both necessarily false and anti civilisational evolutionary materialistic scientism. This, despite being dressed up in the lab coat, is not in fact a responsible worldview as it is immediately, devastatingly self-defeating by undermining credibility of rational, responsible morally governed freedom of mind. [See PS below.]

    In that context, we must duly note how you, JH, have for a considerable period repeatedly, habitually sought to inject and threadjack on promotion of inherently disordered sexual practices, raising yet further questions of confession by projection. Linked, we note your enabling behaviour regarding the ongoing, worst mass killing in human history, the slaughter of our living posterity under false colour of law, rights and liberation of women since the early 70’s; amounting to 1.4+ billion and growing at another million per week.

    Such gives lurid context to your hostility towards sunday school.

    KF

    PS, JBS Haldane, co-founder of neo-darwinian theory, is withering:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, Provine provides further context:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent

    [==> key theses of nihilism. Citing the just linked IEP: “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.” As without rational, responsible freedom, rationality collapses, Provine implies self referential incoherence. Similarly, ethical foundations include our self evident, pervasive first duties of reason: to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness and justice etc. Provine has given a recipe for gross (and all too common) intellectual irresponsibility.]

    . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, for further reminder, some algebra on the obvious target, knowable moral truth and its consequence, a body of moral knowledge:

    Objective, so know-able moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn’t even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true; as is so for other reasonably identifiable fields of discussion. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity.

    Let a proposition be represented by x
    M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [–> truth claim]
    O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [–> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged]

    It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1

    [ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: “[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc — c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.” This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of “community” to one individual. He continues, “These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . ” [–> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]

    However, the subject of S is M,
    it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M
    where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M
    so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [–> reductio ad absurdum]

    ++++++++++
    ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above]
    ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true]
    __________
    O*M = 1 [condensing not of not]
    where, M [moral truth claim]
    So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true]

    That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false.

    The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.

    Where, Vaughn is also relevant:

    Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:

    . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement

    Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.

    Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.

    Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.

    Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

    You would be well advised to reconsider.

  51. 51
    vividbleau says:

    Jholo RE 41

    This is laughable, a lecture about women from a misogynist,

    “The New Misogyny
    The claim that anyone can be a woman is a denigration of all women
    by Christine Rosen

    “A new form of misogyny is taking hold in contemporary culture. It comes in the guise of a liberationist philosophy, a transformational movement dedicated to open-mindedness. Its advocates believe they are ushering in a world in which one can be whomever one chooses to be. And in doing so, they are treating womanhood itself—the defining feature of half of humankind—as though it is a disposable commodity.”

    “Feminists have long argued that although men and women are fundamentally different, they deserve equal treatment as a matter of human rights. “Ain’t I a Woman?” was the plaintive demand of feminist Sojourner Truth. The trans-rights movement answers that demand with: There is no such thing as a woman.”

    “It is becoming increasingly clear that the new misogyny shares one feature with the old: contempt for women. The difference is that the contempt is now coming from the radical extremes of the trans movement. As the signs carried by trans activists who recently protested a women’s conference in the UK read, “Suck my dick you transphobic cunt.” This is not progress. This is misogyny.”

    “This is an audacious form of woman-hatred, especially since it comes in the guise of opening up womanhood, of extending its benefits to all. But by doing so, it becomes nothing less than an assault on what it means to be a woman.”

    “And so women now find themselves unwittingly forced into the position of revanchists, trying to reclaim territory they long ago won in their struggle for equality.”

    Vivid

  52. 52
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS, what sort of evolutionary views, then, could merit inclusion in a soundly scientific worldview?

    First, a scientifically informed view would recognise strengths, limitations and defeat-ability of scientific knowledge claims, especially those seeking to reconstruct the remote past of origins, which was not actually observed. By contrast, one can make a plausible case that time lags allow us to study the remote cosmological past at the rate of more or less a year per light year of distance, adjusted for cosmological expansion to about 90 bn LY not 30 bn across.

    So, there is support for an old cosmos.

    In that light, the FSCO/I required for forming cells and body plans points to some sort of intelligent intervention across the history of origin of life and of forms of life including our own. The presence of coded, algorithmic information in the cell is decisive. From the root, life reflects design, and theories that would demand power of blind chance and mechanical necessity to effect OoL and of body plans, lacks key warrant. Descent with modification is inherently limited given the FSCO/I challenge.

    Further to this, cosmological fine tuning points to design of the cosmos.

    Where, too, a cosmos from utter non being is impossible, a quasi infinite causal-temporal past could not be traversed as an implicitly infinite span of years cannot be traversed in steps. That is, the physical past is inherently finite and bounded further requiring necessary being root of reality. Yes, we need to respect logic of being too.

    Yet further, our origin raises issues as to the source of rational, responsible, morally governed freedom, the basis for science and other intellectual endeavours. Provine’s no free will is self refuting. This points to oracle machine, exceeding limits of mechanical computation.

    So, a viable evolutionary worldview would be open to design and to a creator who is a necessary being world root.

  53. 53
    Marfin says:

    To all you folks on the no God side , I was an atheist , I did not want to believe in a God, at 22 years old I wanted the old wine women and song lifestyle, so why do I believe in God , well I hold to the what is the most reasonable position to hold based on the evidence.
    It may not be the most palatable ,it may interfere with my physical desires , it may put a damper on my desire to live a wine , women and song lifestyle , it may not always be the life I want to live but is it the most reasonable position to hold based on the evidence from science , nature, humanity, etc well absolutely.
    So if anyone out there has a wealth of evidence I somehow missed please present it asap as there is wine women and song yet to be enjoyed and at 60 I am running out of time , but for now I will go with the evidence and I recommend you all do likewise.

  54. 54
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @JVL : UK replaced priests with drag queens and church of Jesus with church of atheist filth by sexualization of children(4 years taught to masturbate , in secondary :about anal sex , facial ejaculation and bondage) . Make sense! Do you know that or you are part of that?

    Atheists say: We found few bad apple in church let’s overthrow the church of Christ with our filth church in which all apples are bad and we do openly to children what few priests did in private.

    #Groomed – How Schools Sexualise Your Children

    “We’ll convert your children ” Performed by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JH & Sev

    If by this you mean that a woman pregnant because she was raped should be allowed to have an abortion

    This reveals that there is moral awareness and a guilty conscience.
    You’re proclaiming feminism and then choosing only the rare exception, side-stepping the fact that today’s feminists are calling for abortion on demand.
    The good news is that it’s obvious you know that is abhorrent and you still have a conscience.
    But the unfortunate thing is you’re trying to white knight this as male-feminists by supporting abortion in this one case.
    A true man protects and honors women and children.
    A feminist man abuses both and damages his own masculinity, a quality which women and children rely upon.

  56. 56
    JHolo says:

    SA: You’re proclaiming feminism and then choosing only the rare exception, side-stepping the fact that today’s feminists are calling for abortion on demand.

    Demanding the availability of something and availing yourself of it are two different things. I demand free health care but I hope I never have to use it.

    And people keep sidestepping the issue that abortion numbers have been steadily declining, to the point that they are now lower than they were before Roe, even though the population is 30% higher.

    This decline is not due to women having less sex. It is due to women (and men),who have been provided the proper information about sex, using birth control. It is very telling that the highest rates of teen pregnancies are in the Bible-belt states. Many of which invoked trigger laws immediately after Roe was overturned.

    It should also be mentioned that at least one justice has stated his desire to ban birth control.

  57. 57
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Sev and JHolo

    You’ve endorsed and made a claim that is very stereotypical of a feminist/liberal/atheist that has little understanding of the thing you are criticizing

    This was something I rebutttled in a class that embarrassed the person that was doing their dissertation for “On way in the Bible is sexist”

    JHolo you obviously are referencing Ephesians 23

    So I would strongly suggest before you make anymore of your accusations that you read the remaining Ephesians 24, 25, and I think 26

    If either of you have an understanding the Bible that is more than you “skimmed over it and now you’re an atheist and you think you’re smarter than everybody else” then you’ll realize that the husbands roll is not to be the wife’s boss, she is not subject to all his whims, and the church does not endorse the nonsense you believe.

    “Two passages speak of the husband as kephale, “head,” of the wife: 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. Here the word kephale carries the same meaning, in an analogous sense, that it has in those passages in which it is applied to Christ. Paul often used the head-body metaphor to stress the unity of Christ and his Church. In nature, of course, head and body are dependent on each other for their fullness.

    See in Ephesians 5:25–27 what Christ as kephale of the Church does for her: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her . . . that he might present the church to himself in splendor . . . that she might be holy and without blemish.” Christ gave himself up for the church to enable her to become all that God created her to be.

    Now look at what the husband’s being kephale for his wife means: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (emphasis added). Not many husbands are called upon to literally die for their wives, but all husbands are called by God to sacrificially serve their wives.

    It is clear from Scripture that the husband’s being head of his wife does not mean he is to be “boss” or that he is to dominate his wife. Being “head” means giving his wife sensitive, intelligent leadership. But note: It’s to be leadership that grows out of loving consultation between the spouses. As head, the husband provides for and cares for his wife (and of course the children). He bears primary overall responsibility for the family“

    I took this from the site below if you want a stronger understanding of my religion before you criticize it, try educating yourself first. It’s a great site to do that with.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/wives-be-subject-to-your-husbands

  58. 58
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the new misogyny shares one feature with the old: contempt for women.

    Christine Rosen felt she needed to include lurid obscenity in her article. That just undercuts the respect she’s looking for as a woman.

  59. 59
    Marfin says:

    Sev & J Holo, we have a universe, life, morals, love , intelligence ,laws, etc who`s origins need an explanation, now a universe and all these thing coming from nothing and without direction seemed totally unsatisfactory to me, so if you guys want to proffer what I might be missing I am more than willing to listen.
    If you don`t proffer any reason or evidence , should you then question your position , I believe you should , I did that`s which I find the God explanation much more reasonable , not because of some need or prior position (I was an atheist) but because in spite of what I wanted to believe the evidence pointed elsewhere.

  60. 60
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JH

    And people keep sidestepping the issue that abortion numbers have been steadily declining…

    Fewer babies are being murdered and you’re mentioning that as a good thing.
    As I said, it’s good to see that you still have a conscience.

    You’ll give no credit to the growing pro-life movement for the decline in abortions – of course.

  61. 61
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Marfin

    a universe, life, morals, love , intelligence ,laws, etc

    Just saying all of that came from a random accident is not a reasonable explanation. The evidence says that there is something much more than that.

  62. 62
    JHolo says:

    Marfin: If you don`t proffer any reason or evidence , should you then question your position , I believe you should , I did that`s which I find the God explanation much more reasonable ,

    But god is not an explanation. Any more than Santa, Leprechauns and inter dimensional space monkeys are. The only truly honest answer to the origin of the universe and life is “we don’t know”. It may not be satisfying, but it is honest.

  63. 63
    Silver Asiatic says:

    God as first cause, necessary being, law maker, source of order, rationality, meaning, moral conscience, freewill – and human destiny. Those are arguments and evidences. From those, we can know that God exists.

  64. 64
    relatd says:

    JH at 39,

    When discussing surveys, individual experiences do not apply.

  65. 65
    relatd says:

    JH at 41,

    Back to mindlessly quoting from the Leftist Causes Handbook? Again? How to accuse people as one of the OFFICIAL ACCUSERS?

    Has your Leftist Utopia appeared yet? Why not?

  66. 66
    relatd says:

    AC at 47,

    The Bible is the Word of God. Do not misrepresent it. That includes the prophets who were appointed by God.

  67. 67
    relatd says:

    Marfin at 53,

    It all boils down to women, illegal drugs and booze. That’s not the right way to live.

  68. 68
    relatd says:

    SA at 55,

    Well said. No man should accept the preaching of radical feminists.

    ALL men should respect women, be gentlemen and understand what it means to be a husband and father. Men and women have differences but are complementary. What God puts together in marriage must be respected. Dating needs to be restored to its proper form. If marriage gets brought up, both people must be sure they understand their expectations before the ceremony. That way, both can walk down the aisle, say their vows, and there are no surprises afterwards.

  69. 69
    relatd says:

    JH at 56,

    Cut the crap. Over 50% of abortions are done with pills and not reported. Abortion still results in the death of a baby.

  70. 70
    relatd says:

    SA at 58,

    Obscene words and profanity are worshiped by radicals.

  71. 71
    relatd says:

    JH at 62,

    “We don’t know” yet your words and posted history show you KNOW EXACTLY how to behave as someone who has NO ONE in authority over you. So your behavior involves the typical choices those who do not believe would make. Immoral sex, drugs and Leftist causes, plus booze.

  72. 72
    Marfin says:

    J Holo , You see its not always what we don`t know , but what we do know. We know the universe is not eternal , so it had a beginning ,so it began out of what ,we know based on the laws of thermodynamics matter does not self organise into more complex arrangements , we know life only comes from life , we know a objective moral law can come from an objective moral law giver , the list goes on.
    So nothing created everything ,or someone or thing beyond the material created everything , now applying what we do know, not what we don`t which is the most reasonable , it may be incredible ,
    it may seem fantastic but based on what we know it is the most reasonable.

  73. 73
    Marfin says:

    Related at 67 , only if there is a God , if there is no God then wine , Women , Song is the way to go, as why not indulge completely the flesh as there is not a spiritual side to nourish and hope in , but as there is a God I will stick with his commands as he knows best.

  74. 74
    relatd says:

    Marfin at 73,

    Hebrews 9:27

    “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”

    Mark 8:36

    “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

  75. 75
    JVL says:

    LCD: UK replaced priests with drag queens and church of Jesus with church of atheist filth by sexualization of children(4 years taught to masturbate , in secondary :about anal sex , facial ejaculation and bondage) . Make sense! Do you know that or you are part of that?

    I know that is not true having raised a child in the current UK education system and having worked at a highly rated primary school where they still have weekly in-school worship services, pray before meals and attend several local church worship services per year. You are aware that many, many English primary schools are referred to a Church of England schools?

    Atheists say: We found few bad apple in church let’s overthrow the church of Christ with our filth church in which all apples are bad and we do openly to children what few priests did in private.

    Sigh. The way it appears is that the church never, ever reported any of the clergy they knew were abusing children to the authorities. Sometimes they just moved them and they abused again. I’m not making this up; this stuff happened!

    Which makes young people nervous about participating in church activities. Understandably. And when they hear story after story of the Catholic or Anglican church having covered up known abuse then the only place to place the blame for people being suspicious is on the church elders.

    When you elevate yourself above the everyday people, when you avoid the same prosecution that would come in a civil court of law then people stop granting you respect and may choose to ignore what you have to say.

    Yes, there are a lot of atheist comedians and actors and authors who are speaking their minds, as they are allowed to do, which does influence some people. But the fact that lots of young people blanket disregard what the church is saying is down to the church badly handling serious cases of abuse which they tried to sweep under the ecclesiastical carpet. And it’s reasonable to assume that there are even more cases which the police and news agencies never hear about.

    When such cases of abuse are reported and shown to have been side-stepped I assume you are amongst the vanguard of people asking for reform and a change of the way the church handles such things. So, why do you think the Catholic and Anglican churches have time and time again avoided letting their clergy be prosecuted in a civil court of law? Do you realise how it appears when a priest or vicar who is known to have sexually abused children in their care is just moved away from the area and not prosecuted? It looks like the church can’t handle the problem and, worse, partially condones such behaviour.

    Perhaps you’d like to spell out a way the church can get the mote out of its own eye and fix its problems.

  76. 76
    relatd says:

    JVL at 75,

    Did you look into it? Or are you content with only making accusations? However well founded?

    https://www.usccb.org/committees/protection-children-young-people/how-report-abuse

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Did you look into it? Or are you content with only making accusations? However well founded?

    I am content with relating what has been widely reported in the news over years and years. I’m not talking about what their guidelines are, we have them at the school I work at. We know abuse happens regardless and we also know that, in some cases, it has been covered up by the Catholic and Anglican churches. We know this. Did you look into it or are you just content with making assumptions?

    And, again, I am not talking about faith itself (I have several friends of great faith that I respect immensely) or the doctrine of any Christian faith. I am talking about the way the Ecclesiastical organisations have shot themselves in the foot by avoiding sending their abusing clergy to the civil courts and prison. That’s what’s I’m bringing up, not the tenets of the Christian faith.

    When people see such behaviour they stop paying their respects. They stop buying the product. They look for something else. If it’s a company we can stop giving them money. If it’s a church, even one protected by the UK government as the Church of England is, then people stop attending and hearing the message.

    What should be done about that?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion_sexual_abuse_cases

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

    The second article is particularly long.

    Shall I check on the other protestant sects?

  78. 78
    relatd says:

    JVL at 77,

    A mechanism is in place to report abuse to law enforcement and Church authorities. Why are you so defensive about not criticizing the faith? Nothing you wrote had any bearing on that.

    https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safer-church

    Would you report suspected abuse to the police in England?

  79. 79
    AaronS1978 says:

    https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Priest%20sexual%20abuse

    I’ll just drop this right here if anybody wants to take a gander

  80. 80
    relatd says:

    AS at 79,

    Thanks. Worth highlighting:

    “But neither is sex abuse a distinctly religious problem. A 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Education indicated that one out of ten public school students experience some kind of unwanted sexual advance from an educator. Two-thirds of those students say the advance involved some kind of physical contact. According to the report’s author, “more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade.”

    “Why, then, does the public still associate priests with sexual abuse and not public school teachers, who may be in the present moment more likely to abuse children?

    “Perhaps it’s because news media tend to report on crimes like clergy abuse in “waves” that can leave an impression in the public mind that they’re more common than they really are. (For example, pervasive media coverage of mass shootings may lead people to think violent crime is at an all-time high, but according to FBI statistics violent crime actually dropped by forty-eight percent between 1993 and 2016.) Also, since one-third of those who were abused between 1960 and 1980 waited to report the crime until after 2002, and since fresh reports of investigations, like that of the Pennsylvania grand jury this year, are treated as news even though the incidents they cover are usually decades old, there can be a compression of events that magnifies their perceived frequency.”

  81. 81
    JVL says:

    Relatd: A mechanism is in place to report abuse to law enforcement and Church authorities. Why are you so defensive about not criticizing the faith? Nothing you wrote had any bearing on that.

    As I said. This is not a faith issue. It’s a organisation issue. But that affects people’s view of the faith. If those who profess the faith can’t keep it or enforce it . . .

    Why should I criticise the faith when it’s not at fault?

    Would you report suspected abuse to the police in England?

    As someone who works at a primary school then it would depend on where the abuse occurred; first I’d followed the designated procedures. But, yes, I would if any other procedures failed. Absolutely. It’s a hideous and vile crime.

  82. 82
    relatd says:

    JVL at 81,

    Good to hear that what can be done in the United States can be done in England.

  83. 83
    JHolo says:

    JVL, you might be interested in an article I ran across while googling penalties imposed on churches linked to abuse and assault.

    Apparently the church is being forced to sell churches and church properties to pay off settlements to victims of abuse at the church run Mount Cashel orphanage. I wonder if this is only the start of the church being forced to shutter churches to pay off abuse victims.

    All remaining churches, halls and rectories on southern Avalon, Burin Peninsula to be sold.

    The move will reshape the landscape for Catholics in the St. John’s area and beyond as the church — which has been held liable for sexual and physical abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage — raises money to settle victim claims from the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s….,,

    In a letter read to parishioners at mass this past weekend, Archbishop Hundt says only a few of the property buyers intend to use the buildings as Catholic churches.

    https://apple.news/Aj59-RIzIRD2I6rGGpTy7sQ

  84. 84
    relatd says:

    JH at 83,

    You wonder? What are public schools doing about sexual abuse victims?

    https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle-ballard-high-school-sex-abuse/281-7692da13-c83b-4c71-add1-4c2335ea3bd1

  85. 85
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    I know that is not true having raised a child in the current UK education system and having worked at a highly rated primary school

    Lie.

    The new legislation also means that all schools (including faith schools) must teach directly on same sex marriage and civil partnerships, and attend to needs of homosexual and gender re-alignment pupils. The Guidance on Relationship and Sex Education says: “LGBT teaching should be fully integrated into the School and not taught as a stand-alone subject.”
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/home/are-new-school-regulations-sexualising-our-children/4531.article

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/this-isnt-scaremongering-the-new-curriculum-really-is-sexualising-our-children/3867.article

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-education-lessons-uk-schools-20144000

  86. 86
    JVL says:

    LCD: Lie.

    Here we go.

    The new legislation also means that all schools (including faith schools) must teach directly on same sex marriage and civil partnerships, and attend to needs of homosexual and gender re-alignment pupils. The Guidance on Relationship and Sex Education says: “LGBT teaching should be fully integrated into the School and not taught as a stand-alone subject.”

    For you what seems like a huge, major issue is just a minor blip in the school curriculum. I haven’t seen drag queens coming into my school flaunting their lifestyles. In fact, I haven’t seen much of anything about any of this stuff. When it’s handled it’s just: here’s what’s happening, do you have any questions, should we discuss it?

    You’re the one with a problem here. At my school parents get much more upset if a family picnic is cancelled than about such directives from the state. Because it’s not a big deal. You’re just trying to make it a big deal and you don’t even live here.

  87. 87
    JVL says:

    JHolo: JVL, you might be interested in an article I ran across while googling penalties imposed on churches linked to abuse and assault.

    Apparently the church is being forced to sell churches and church properties to pay off settlements to victims of abuse at the church run Mount Cashel orphanage. I wonder if this is only the start of the church being forced to shutter churches to pay off abuse victims.

    You reap what you sew. What goes around comes around. Instant Karma’s gonna get you.

  88. 88
    relatd says:

    JVL at 86,

    So public schools have been turned into Reeducation Camps. Just like the Communists. If you don’t comply you are forced to comply. Hypocrites. ‘We want freedom, man.’ No you don’t. It’s your way or the highway — or reeducation camps.

    Thank God people see this and are home schooling their kids – away from the Communists.

  89. 89
    JVL says:

    Relatd: “But neither is sex abuse a distinctly religious problem. A 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Education indicated that one out of ten public school students experience some kind of unwanted sexual advance from an educator. Two-thirds of those students say the advance involved some kind of physical contact. According to the report’s author, “more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade.”

    I never denied that abuse doesn’t happen at public schools in the UK. I know of several cases personally and there have been quite a few reported in the national media. The question is: how does the pertinent organisation handle such things. Schools have clear and objective rules and procedures which they are obligated by law to follow. If they don’t then they are subject to severe fines and other penalties. When it comes to the churches . . . well . . . they say things but are they actually following through on those promises? A lot of people question their ability to protect their congregations and follow the law of the land. That is my point: it’s not that the church is the only source of abuse in the community, have they been given a pass and been allowed to glide under the radar? AND, have they purposely chosen to try and do so?

    Why has the church purposely chosen to protect it child abusers? I’d like someone to answer that.

  90. 90
    JVL says:

    Relatd: So public schools have been turned into Reeducation Camps. Just like the Communists. If you don’t comply you are forced to comply. Hypocrites. ‘We want freedom, man.’ No you don’t. It’s your way or the highway — or reeducation camps.

    Uh huh. You know ’cause you’ve been there? I have been there. You are way off base.

    Thank God people see this and are home schooling their kids – away from the Communists.

    Away from the Communists? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    Let me ask you a question: do you believe in a democratic system of government? One which you might not always get your way? One where you just might have to accept that things are going to be different from what you would like?

  91. 91
    relatd says:

    JVL at 89,

    Again, you prefer accusations and don’t bother to look into it on your own. Why is that? I’m sure you have access to the internet to get your question answered.

  92. 92
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    I haven’t seen drag queens

    😆 There are no mirrors in schools?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/16/drag-queen-story-time-primary-school-children-prompts-backlash/

  93. 93
    relatd says:

    JVL at 90,

    I know a family who home schooled. I know why they home schooled. They don’t want their kids exposed to deviant lifestyles at public schools.

    I’m not going to accept Leftists forcing their way into public schools and forcing kids to sit through lectures on deviant lifestyles. If I had kids in public or private school today, I would go over what they were taught and correct them.

    “… you just might have to accept that things are going to be different from what you would like?”

    The ONLY thing Leftists will accept is a school system that is controlled by them and that teaches what they want it to teach.

    Parents who home school are avoiding that mess.

  94. 94
    relatd says:

    LCD at 92,

    “Mommy. They had men dressed like ladies at school today. Why is that?”

    Mum on the phone to her child’s school: “If you do not end this totally inappropriate practice immediately, I will file a complaint with the proper authorities. My God, should children ever need to be exposed to this?”

  95. 95
  96. 96
    relatd says:

    Law that requires patients under 18 years old to notify their parents or guardians in order to get an abortion upheld.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-lets-indiana-enforce-abortion-parental-consent-requireme-rcna38744

  97. 97
    AaronS1978 says:

    So explained to me how being drag and trans which is 100% based on one’s sexual identity is not sexualizing our children in the classroom by exposing child to their over the top outrageous nonsense at an adolescent age?

    Pardon me for not wanting my 6 year old child being read Winnie the Pooh by a 6’4” drag queen named Priscilla HardnWet

  98. 98
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 97,

    Exposing kids to a lifestyle choice like this is wrong. Kids should be allowed to be kids and only encounter age appropriate materials and situations. So-called Drag Queens are nothing more than men dressed like women, but trying to indoctrinate kids to this? That is very wrong. It should be banned. But I know efforts are being made to have non-school events with men dressed like women and parents are told to bring the kids. Again, a total ban on this in schools and any public event is in order.

  99. 99
    AndyClue says:

    @relatd:

    The Bible is the Word of God. Do not misrepresent it. That includes the prophets who were appointed by God.

    LOL. The bible was written by humans. And your prophets have no certificate from god. Anyone can claim to be a prophet, it doesn’t make him or her one. I advise you to ditch the inferior books and human ideas about god and go directly to the source: god. I’m actually fascinated by the christianists refusal to do so.

  100. 100
    relatd says:

    AC t 99,

    You lack knowledge – that’s all. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    “136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).”

    You should ditch your human ideas about the Bible and God. If you get some news directly from God, do let me know. In the meantime, the Catechism presents the truth.

  101. 101
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Again, you prefer accusations and don’t bother to look into it on your own. Why is that? I’m sure you have access to the internet to get your question answered.

    I know because I have heard reported on the news over many years cases of where the Anglican and Catholic Churches have tried to avoid publicity and acknowledging that some of their clergy have been guilty of child abuse. I gave you links to Wikipedia articles about many of those cases.

    I am not denying that the churches have policies taking a stance against child abuse but the fact this that it has happened and that the churches have tried to avoid publicity and their clergy being prosecuted in a civil lawsuit.

    What am I saying that is not true or easily verified? Why are you trying to defend something that is, as you say, easily verified by a simple internet search?

    I’m not going to accept Leftists forcing their way into public schools and forcing kids to sit through lectures on deviant lifestyles. If I had kids in public or private school today, I would go over what they were taught and correct them.

    Fine, you have the choice to home School. That has been available for many years to anyone who objects to state sponsored curriculum.

    Also, I know from personal experience that what you are talking about is rare to the point where I have never experienced it or know of any case that happened in my area. I’m not saying it didn’t happen just that it’s not wide spread and rampant.

    The ONLY thing Leftists will accept is a school system that is controlled by them and that teaches what they want it to teach.

    So, you don’t accept a democratic system where you might be on the losing side. Got it.

    Mum on the phone to her child’s school: “If you do not end this totally inappropriate practice immediately, I will file a complaint with the proper authorities. My God, should children ever need to be exposed to this?”

    I guess you also object to mainstream television programmes like RuPaul’s Drag Race? A show that is very popular over here and, I think, in the US.

    I get that you are desperately afraid of modern trends and fashions but, guess what, that doesn’t mean you get to dictate to the rest of use what we chose to watch and, sometimes, pay for.

    Over 100 years ago some people were desperate to avoid giving women the vote. Over 100 years ago many people were desperate to avoid giving black people the vote. Before that many people were desperate to avoid giving non-land owning white men the vote. Now you are desperate to avoid alternate lifestyles from being discussed and presented in schools. Aside from your religious objections has it ever occurred to you wonder what it is you’re so afraid of? What you personally are going to lose, if anything? Has it ever occurred to you to ask: what if I am in the minority?

  102. 102
    JVL says:

    AaronS1978: So explained to me how being drag and trans which is 100% based on one’s sexual identity is not sexualizing our children in the classroom by exposing child to their over the top outrageous nonsense at an adolescent age?

    It’s not telling the kids to be a certain way. It’s just saying some people are that way. So what? It’s true isn’t it? Are you saying you want to deny telling children some things which are true because you don’t like them?

    Pardon me for not wanting my 6 year old child being read Winnie the Pooh by a 6’4” drag queen named Priscilla HardnWet

    I assume you object to RuPaul’s Drag Race being on mainstream television? And that video games which encourage a lot of shooting and killing being easily available?

  103. 103
    relatd says:

    JVL at 101,

    Home schooling is larger than you imagine in the U.S.

    https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

  104. 104
    relatd says:

    JVL at 101,

    Just like JHolo, you are quoting mindlessly from the Leftist Causes Handbook. You can only accuse because that’s your job. You CAN find out the answers on your own but you refuse. Why? Because you are another OFFICIAL ACCUSER.

    at 102,

    “I assume you object to RuPaul’s Drag Race being on mainstream television? And that video games which encourage a lot of shooting and killing being easily available?”

    Shooting and killing in video games is fake. Even kids know that. No actual person gets killed. Even kids know that. RuPaul should be banned from TV. And anything similar.

    “… that doesn’t mean you get to dictate to the rest of use what we chose to watch and, sometimes, pay for. ”

    The Leftist (wannabe) Dictatorship is working very hard to be THE controlling force over what non-Leftists are allowed to watch on TV. Hypocrites.

  105. 105
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Home schooling is larger than you imagine in the U.S.

    I know it’s common. In the 1990s I knew several families who home schooled and was invited to one of their graduation ceremonies in the Seattle region where literally hundreds of teenage kids were graduating with the equivalent of a high school diploma. They had to pass the same standardised tests to establish their abilities. You assume because I disagree with you on some things that I am ignorant or stupid or disagree with you on other topics.

    I have never, nor will I ever, argue against the right for parents to home school their children. I personally know of several children who were home schooled and went on to have great success in regular higher education. Your assumptions about me and my motives is insulting and laughable.

  106. 106
    relatd says:

    JVL at 102,

    I condemn any comments that approve exposing children to perverse persons, men or women. And this needs to be pointed out. The goal of exposing kids to this is not a good one. Again, statements like this deserve to be condemned.

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Just like JHolo, you are quoting mindlessly from the Leftist Causes Handbook. You can only accuse because that’s your job. You CAN find out the answers on your own but you refuse. Why? Because you are another OFFICIAL ACCUSER.

    And you are terrified of modern trends and interests. I do know what is going on and what is real and what is widely accepted by people in the UK. I live here. I work in a local primary school. I watch the news. My own child went through primary and secondary school in the UK. Can you say the same?

    RuPaul should be banned from TV. And anything similar.

    You have a vote just like anyone else. And you can and should use that vote to support the things you believe in and try and defeat the things you disagree with. But, in the end, you might lose some of your arguments. Just like I do. I chose NOT to try and throw the whole system out because I didn’t win some arguments. Because I think that’s the best way to run a country, by a majority consent of the constituency. If you’ve got a better idea then let’s hear it.

    I condemn any comments that approve exposing children to perverse persons, men or women. And this needs to be pointed out. The goal of exposing kids to this is not a good one. Again, statements like this deserve to be condemned.

    Nice to know that you object to certain viewpoints being heard. I guess you’re also against free speech. At least you’re honest about that.

  108. 108
    relatd says:

    JVL at 107,

    Do you read what you write? “… I chose NOT to try and throw the whole system out…” You have no idea, do you? Where did I write: ‘throw the whole system out?” I did not. I brought up something specific and that it should be banned, but you are only showing the extremist side – all thrown out or nothing. Do get a grip.

    You think this is just my idea? That it’s just about me?

    https://wamu.org/story/22/06/16/some-lawmakers-hope-to-crack-down-on-drag-shows-watched-by-children/

    People can file a complaint with the FCC.

    https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us

    “I guess you’re also against free speech.” Just throw the blanket over someone? I believe in throwing out the perverse on TV. Read what I write.

  109. 109
    JVL says:

    Relatd: “I guess you’re also against free speech.” Just throw the blanket over someone? I believe in throwing out the perverse on TV. Read what I write.

    I do read what you write. And you say things like ‘banned’ whereas I would not because I don’t agree with you that some things should be banned just because you or I disagree with them. In fact, I don’t even bring such things up because I accept that there’s going to be content and topics in the mainstream which I find objectionable and/or false and misleading. But I don’t say they should be banned. I accept that’s that the way the system works and things are not always going to only represent my viewpoint.

    So why do you even say some topics should be banned? Why would you even think it’s sensible or fair to prevent some content from being available? I’m not talking about how to make nerve agents or atomic bombs mind you.

    Certainly parents can control the content their kids are exposed to in their own home. But, outside of that, why would anyone even contemplate the idea that their own personal morals and ethics rule what is widely available and accessible? Why would you even suggest such a thing? Unless you didn’t believe that no one view point or moral stance should rule the roost. Unless you thought that majority rules was not a great idea. Unless you wanted to toss that idea out the window.

    Why would you even say: some ideas should be banned? What kind of person says that?

    You think this is just my idea? That it’s just about me?

    If there’s more than one of you does that make it right or justified? Who gets to decide what is allowed to be said or written? Is it you? Even if you’re in the minority?

  110. 110
    relatd says:

    JVL at 109,

    You have no knowledge of history. None. It’s obvious.

    When TV was just 4 channels (3 in some places), a man appeared on TV. “I represent your TV station’s Standards and Practices Department. We watch everything you watch to make sure it is suitable for the entire family.”

    The material was screened to fit Moral Standards. These were set. In the 1960s, you could not say sex on TV or pregnant. TV shows were wholesome and everyone from Grandma to little kids could watch most shows together. Only movies with a lot of violence could be excluded.

    At the end of the day, the TV actually shut down but not before a beautiful film of a beautiful jet fighter was shown. As it flew through the air, a man’s voice said:

    “Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
    And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
    Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
    Of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
    You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
    High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
    I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
    My eager craft through footless halls of air . . .

    “Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
    I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
    Where never lark, or ever eagle flew —
    And, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
    Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”

    High Flight
    by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

  111. 111
    JHolo says:

    Well, the “discussion” between Relatd and JVL has certainly been entertaining and very informative.

    Based on this discussion, I would feel comfortable having JVL babysit my grandchildren. And although i have had disagreements with KF, SA, Marfin and others here, I would feel that my grandkids would be safe with them as well. But there is no way in hell I would allow Relatd unsupervised access to my grandchildren.

  112. 112
    kairosfocus says:

    NOTES:

    1] Activism seeks to manipulate archaeology by forcing researchers not to classify remains by sex, on gender-bender ideological grounds: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/18/lgbt-activists-push-to-bar-anthropologists-from-identifying-human-remains-as-male-or-female/

    2] Reddit seeks to ban references to grooming behaviour of activists as hate speech: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/18/woke-reddit-bans-the-word-groomer-as-hate-speech/

    KF

    PS, the reality is, the activity targetting children is manifestly grooming behaviour. It is interesting to contrast the hostility to Sunday School above with the response of the same objectors to grooming behaviour.

  113. 113
    relatd says:

    JH at 111,

    From page 3 of the Handbook.

    Make a false accusation against your opponent. The best approach is to strongly suggest he is some sort of sexual pervert. Conservatives and religious types usually react strongly to that.

    * Yawn *

  114. 114
    kairosfocus says:

    JH 111. shjame on you, you know that just the suggestion is tainting. KF

  115. 115
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AC

    LOL. The bible was written by humans.

    If someone told you an interesting story and then you told someone else the same story – would you take credit for having been the original author of it?

  116. 116
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Relatd

    Make a false accusation against your opponent. The best approach is to strongly suggest he is some sort of sexual pervert. Conservatives and religious types usually react strongly to that.

    Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    In this case, you’re arguing against perversion. But that’s the classic leftist tactic. The person who seeks to protect society from sexual immorality is then accused of being either prudish or of harboring a perversion that he’s covering up by his moral concern.
    This is standard stuff. I’ve seen it for decades.
    It traces back to the work of the Great Accuser himself – nothing has changed there.
    Taunt the target with obscenity, and when the target pushes back, act like a victim and accuse him of being hostile and ridicule him for being repressed.

  117. 117
    relatd says:

    SA at 116,

    You have summed up what is going on here. It will just repeat from here.

    Punch yourself in the face and accuse the other guy of hitting you 🙂

  118. 118
    AaronS1978 says:

    @102 jvl
    There is a time and place for all of that. That time and place is not Kindergarten or first grade

    When a certain level of maturity has been reached then it is more than appropriate

    Sex education happen for me when I was 13 by that time mentally I’m pretty sure I could handle it and I feel that might be a more Appropriate time frame to start teaching sexual identity if it really matters

    But going into a kindergartner class dressed up as a drag queen is in my particular opinion is confusing and damaging

    I don’t expect the kids to understand and certainly I am not going to try to explain that to my five or six-year-old

    I’m also going to not let my children at five and six play super violent video games or watch shows that might be inappropriate for them at that age

    And since you’re into making assumptions I’m going to assume you’re the type of parent that allows their children at the ages of six through 15 to watch porn because that’s every where and you should definitely tell your children about it

    It’s called being a parent…..

  119. 119
    JHolo says:

    Aarons1978@118.
    At early ages you are not teaching details, just the fact that people may be different and that they deserve respect.

    Some kindergarten kids have same sex parents. Other kids will become aware of this. How should this be handled? As well, there are transgendered teachers. Should they be prevented from teaching younger ages? Should they be prevented from teaching at all?

  120. 120
    AaronS1978 says:

    JHolo
    First of all there are those that do teach the details so I disagree with you completely on that, it’s one of the reasons why there’s such a pushback. This isn’t some innocent “just except us for who we are” movement, it’s far more than that and is often politically charged. So I will politely disagree with you because I have seen firsthand the dark side of your group and the very reasons why parents don’t want them teaching their children

    Now how should it be handled? well I think we should leave that up to the parents

    We do not have a right to determine what’s good for another parents child based on our own political and personal beliefs and that’s what’s going on here

    So should all trans and gay teachers be prevented from teaching?

    Well I know what that questions all about, it’s an attempt to back me into a corner to make me look like a hypocrite so I will answer it in the most immature way I can “yes they all should be fired and never allowed to teach” Look at that I’m not a hypocrite. (Emphasis sarcasm)

    I’m sure that if these trans teachers are talented at not teaching religion in the classroom I’m certain they can accomplish not proselytizing and teaching sexuality about themselves in the classroom too so I don’t think there’s any need to prevent them from teaching but if that proves to be too difficult then they don’t need the job

  121. 121
    Marfin says:

    Getting back to the God v Atheism , I know to lot of people who think God is just too incredible a fairy tale to believe in, and compare him to Santa , and other made up characters, but to those people I say this, please closely examine the alternative.
    Even if I gave you the big bang which is disputable , all that was created in that bang was hydrogen , and trace amounts of helium and only possibly some lithium , so basically Hydrogen a colourless odourless gas that if around for long enough turns into butterflys elephants and people.
    NOW LET THAT MILL AROUND YOUR HEADS FORA WHILE .
    Go into your back yard look at ants, spiders , butterfly’s tell me you know that they all came from hydrogen gas by some undirected process , and people say my belief in a creator God is just silly .
    There are 100 more examples like this that show the most reasonable position is a creator God and not everything from nothing , but you have to be honest enough to accept even things you don`t want to accept , and ideas that make you change your life for the betterment of yourself and others.

  122. 122
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You have no knowledge of history. None. It’s obvious.

    Assume, assume, assume and then disparage.

    For the record: I was born while Eisenhower was still President. Some of the TV programmes I watched before they were in syndication: The Munsters, Leave It To Beaver, Lost in Space, Get Smart, The Man From Uncle, I Spy, Star Trek, Gilligan’s Island, Mission Impossible, Family Affair, My Three Sons, Gunsmoke, Bonanza, etc. I remember the Huntley Brinkley Report, Walter Cronkite . . . can’t remember who was on ABC in the 60s . . . I used to get up Saturday morning early enough to catch the test pattern and the Star Spangled Banner before The Road Runner outwitted the coyote again. My family supported Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election, I don’t remember for 1964 but I suspect it was Johnson. I watched the first moon landing on our B&W TV. No one had air conditioning and except for some scares about razor blades in Halloween treats things were pretty calm in my neighbourhood.

    I also remember that black people were still being lynched across the southern US. That mixed-race couples were definitely frowned upon (remember the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?). John Kennedy, Malcom X, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were all assassinated. Women were not allowed to participate in many sporting events like the marathon. The mother of a friend of mine committed suicide. My parents got divorced. Vietnam was sending home hundreds of young men home in body bags. There were riots in many major cities. I recently heard that there were quite a few paedophiles in the US at the time sending each other actual photographs they had bought from someone else or had taken of their own children or those in their extended families. I used to watch some of the TV evangelists and wondered where all the money came from to buy their massive churches and big cars. I used to watch the faith healers a lot of who turned out to be fleecing their believers out of millions of dollars. I saw The Yellow Submarine but I also saw some maniac in Texas shoot a lot of people from a tower and, later, I saw four dead college students in Ohio. Even later I saw George Wallace getting shot, Spiro Agnew resigning in disgrace and finally the President of the US being forced out of office because he lied and lied and lied to the point when even his own party couldn’t put up with it anymore.

    Don’t tell me about the good old days. I was there. And parts of it were pretty crappy.

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    it is now 100 comments past 21 ff above, which responded to the burden of warrant shift gambit that had been played. As a part of that, an outline framing of the credibility of God as necessary being root of reality was laid out, and it was highlighted that a serious candidate necessary being (as opposed to flying spaghetti monsters etc) either is impossible of being as a square circle is, or else is actual. Objectors were invited to respond as to why they reject God.

    We can make a few observations, that speak volumes as to the anticivilisational march of folly now underway:

    1: Objectors ran away from or side stepped the focal challenge. This tells us, they have no cogent reasons [post Plantinga] to deny the serious candidate status of God or that show him impossible of being, even as a square circle is.

    2: That is decisive, there is every reason to acknowledge God as root reality: the inherently good, utterly wise creator, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (This last restores law and government as reflecting due balance of rights, freedoms, duties; e.g. one may only properly claim a right if one is manifestly in the right, there can be no right to compel others to participate in or enable wrongs. Such as, given the tainted distractions above, forced habitual lying that a man is a woman, or that it is a right to slaughter our living posterity in the womb, or that one can redefine marriage at will to include inherently disordered conduct. The breakdowns we are seeing are anticivilisational and so misanthropic folly driven by the marginalisation of soundness and prudence.)

    3: There was a smear against Sunday School as agit prop indoctrination, implying that millions are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. There was refusal to address the core warrant for the Hebraic-Christian worldview and the contrasting direct self refutation of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. This reflects crooked yardstick thinking attacking what is actually straight and upright.

    4: Instead, there was an attempt to dismiss the Christian faith and institutions as scandal laden, tainted and repulsive. Clergy abuse scandals were highlighted. Of course, given rhetorical patterns tracing to Alinsky’s neo marxist rules for radicals, there was no reply to the question, what significant institution in our civilisation has not faced the results of the moral hazard of being human and by implication, failures of self policing.

    5: So, while reform is indicated (and is always needed in civilisation), such failings have little to do with what is warranted and knowable about God, about the gospel and gospel ethics, and why evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are not serious worldviews options.

    6: Ironically, it is obvious that the same objectors who used abuse to try to marginalise and dismiss the Churches [and especially Sunday School] then enthusiastically enabled inherently disordered sexual conduct, including grooming behaviour targetting the young. They tried to deny the seriousness of such behaviour, but have no substantial justification that what has been going on is anywhere near right or sound or prudent.

    7: This further exposes the anticivilisational and misanthropic nature of the current cultural marxist pushes. The distractions and promotions of same, should cease.

    Can we now return to the focus of the OP?

    Let’s start with:

    Perhaps surprisingly, our survey discovered that the perceived message of science has played a leading role in the loss of faith. We found that scientific theories about the unguided evolution of life have, in particular, led more people to reject belief in God than worries about suffering, disease, or death. It also showed that 65 percent of self-described atheists and 43 percent of agnostics believe “the findings of science [generally] make the existence of God less probable.”

    It’s easy to see why this perception has proliferated. In recent years, many scientists have emerged as celebrity spokesmen for atheism. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, the late Stephen Hawking, and others have published popular books arguing that science renders belief in God unnecessary or implausible. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if, at bottom, there is no purpose, no design… nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” Dawkins famously wrote.

    Here, we can immediately note:

    a: Cell based life has in its core the genetic code and protein synthesis through algorithms using edited mRNA in ribosomes. Thus, string based data structures, codes [so, language], algorithms [so, goal directed processes], and associated genius level molecular nanotech execution machinery.

    b: There is thus every good reason to see that the root of biological life comes from design by language using intelligence with purpose [goals!] and deep knowledge of polymer chemistry.

    c: So, notions about “undirected” immediately collapse. (And so, we see projections to the despised other, Sunday School, reflect cognitive dissonance regarding indoctrinating the public through claims about the powers of blind chance and mechanical necessity to create life and body plan biodiversity, thus functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I.)

    d: While, this could be accounted for on molecular nanotech labs some generations beyond Venter, the further factor of a cosmos fine tuned to support C chem, aqueous medium, cell based life, points to design of the cosmos, thus to where logic of being already points, necessary being reality root and designer of worlds including those with morally governed creatures, us.

    e: So, already, we know much of the hostility against and fallacy riddled objections to the scientifically well warranted design inference come from ideological commitment to self-refuting evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers.

    f: So, we may freely infer that science and science education [as well as much of the media] have been subverted in service to a blatantly self refuting, necessarily false ideology, by those committed to crooked yardstick thinking.

    g: To remind, Haldane (for nearly a century now!):

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    h: So, the widely promoted false impression that “the findings of science [generally] make the existence of God less probable,” is manifestly false and should have been abandoned decades ago. If, we respected first duties of reason, truth, warrant, right reason, objectivity, fair mindedness. Obviously, instead, we are dealing with ideological and civilisational agendas such as were highlighted by Lewontin.

    The real issue is, how to restore soundness.

    KF

  124. 124
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Lewontin’s cat out of the bag moment is pivotal in showing that yes, we are dealing with a radical, hostile, ruthless and fundamentally irrational agenda:

    [Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    We can find reasons to believe that some of this goes back to Darwin.

    Where, Provine inadvertently exposed where it utterly falls apart:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent

    [==> key theses of nihilism. Citing the just linked IEP: “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.” As without rational, responsible freedom, rationality collapses, Provine implies self referential incoherence. Similarly, ethical foundations include our self evident, pervasive first duties of reason: to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness and justice etc. Provine has given a recipe for gross (and all too common) intellectual irresponsibility.]

    . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

    So, instead of going along with crooked yardstick thinking, trollish toxic distraction, promotion of inherently disordered behaviour, grooming, anticivilisational agendas and outright misanthropy, let us refocus.

  125. 125
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, given the moral hazard of being human, reform is always indicated. But as the past 100+ years and before that the French Revolution showed — yes, there was no excuse in 1917, 1933 or 1949 or 1959 — radicalism too often leads to a slide into lawless ideological oligarchy. Our challenge is soundness and prudence. In that regard, we cannot deride and dismiss the past, we must learn from it. Those who neglect, dismiss or willfully distort the past doom us to pay again in the same coin of treasure, blood and tears that were part of that past as we learned the hard way about folly. You are invited to take up the challenge in 21 above, to address on merits not scandalising distortions and toxic slanders. KF

  126. 126
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: You are invited to take up the challenge in 21 above, to address on merits not scandalising distortions and toxic slanders.

    Thanks for the invitation but I’m afraid I have no significant contribution to make in that discussion.

  127. 127
    relatd says:

    JVL at 122,

    You have two choices. Find someone else to victimize, or better yet, stop victimizing people.

    You don’t know me.

    You cannot read my mind or anyone else’s.

    You cannot assess my mental state. I suggest you find something more productive to do.

  128. 128
    relatd says:

    JH at 119,

    The same old crap. You are AN OFFICIAL ACCUSER. Sweeping all who disagree with you out of the way, and when they get in your way, you do the only thing you can do, ACCUSE. Then, the rest of the group invade schools, now turned into REEDUCATION CAMPS FOR KIDS, and teach kids that sexual deviancy is OK. It’s alright little girl. That guy dressed like a woman won’t hurt you. That man living with another man won’t hurt you. They’re just DiFfErEnT.

    I hope everyone reading realizes that NORMALIZING sexual deviancy is normalizing sexual deviancy. Nothing more. I don’t ask the homeless I help: Are you gay? Do you go to a different Church? Or not believe in God? That is NOT what this is.

    This is about: Gay sex is OK, little girl. It’s OK for two gay men to live together, or two lesbians. It’s OK. I never asked my straight friends what they did in private regarding sex. Never. Just go online and look up a ‘gay pride parade.’ What are they proud about? Gay sex?

    For the record: No one needs my permission to live how they want.

  129. 129
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You have two choices. Find someone else to victimize, or better yet, stop victimizing people.

    I was just pointing out things that are true. AND showing that you make unfounded and incorrect assumptions. Do you feel victimised ’cause you were wrong? Poor baby.

    You don’t know me. You cannot read my mind or anyone else’s. You cannot assess my mental state. I suggest you find something more productive to do.

    I suggest you also stop making assumptions about people and judging them when you don’t know them. Unless you’ve decided that there is a double standard which allows you to act with impunity. Maybe you should just lay the internet down for a while and back away without making eye contact.

    You are AN OFFICIAL ACCUSER. Sweeping all who disagree with you out of the way, and when they get in your way, you do the only thing you can do, ACCUSE.

    Are you very familiar with that kind of behaviour? Had a go at doing that yourself?

    I hope everyone reading realizes that NORMALIZING sexual deviancy is normalizing sexual deviancy.

    And who decides what is acceptable and normal and, more importantly, legal? You? Me? How about we all do it together. Of course that might mean you have to give some ground but that’s democracy for you.

    No one needs my permission to live how they want.

    Gays and lesbians will sleep easier tonight no doubt.

  130. 130
    relatd says:

    “Opinion” article headline in today’s New York Times.

    “When We Consent, We Shouldn’t Feel Terrible After, Right?”

    My edit:

    Sex! Sex! And More Sex! Just Do It! Guilt? What’s That?

  131. 131
    AaronS1978 says:

    “When We Consent, We Shouldn’t Feel Terrible After, Right?”

    Depends, what type of STD did you get?

  132. 132
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 131,

    Thanks to you, a new edit:

    STDs Are Fun! Until You Get The One Bob Got And Then You Die.

  133. 133
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Depends, what type of STD did you get?

    And whose wife were you cheating with?

  134. 134
    zweston says:

    Interestingly our current plague is mostly related and correlated to the very acts we are discussing. Media doesn’t want to talk about that though.

    Stop having sex out of biblical marriage.

  135. 135
    Seversky says:

    It’s good to know Puritanism is still alive and well.

  136. 136
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 135,

    Puritanism, Yes! I live in 1959! Shall I go on?

  137. 137
    relatd says:

    SA at 133,

    Having sex with some random person is more important than getting some STD. Get with the abnormal program 🙂

  138. 138
    Caspian says:

    To AaronS1978, Sev, and others, @38
    I invite you to email discussion questions and thoughts to me at boundariesofscience@gmail.com if you’re looking for an honest, civil, non-inflammatory interaction.
    Blessings,
    Eric Hedin

  139. 139
    AndyClue says:

    @relatd:

    136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors

    Anyone can claim that god is the author of some book. Don’t believe it? Here we go: “god is the author of 30 shades of grey”. See? Anyone. Really, you’re comment is like a darwinist saying: Darwin says it, I believe it, that settles it.

    If you get some news directly from God, do let me know.

    I’m sorry, where do you get your infos from about what god wants from you? From people who tell you what god wants from you?

  140. 140
    AaronS1978 says:

    @SA LOL no bodies god I hope not

  141. 141
    relatd says:

    AC at 139,

    God knows who you are.

  142. 142
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: Just go online and look up a ‘gay pride parade.’

    Why go online. I have been to a couple. They are quite entertaining. And no more sexually explicit than some religious celebrations.

  143. 143
  144. 144
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: Puritanism, Yes! I live in 1959! Shall I go on?

    Feel free. As long as you leave 1959 and it’s moral values and legal proscriptions in 1959.

  145. 145
    JHolo says:

    Relatd: JH at 142

    What does that have to do with my comment about pride parades being no more sexually explicit that some religious celebrations? Let me be more specific. Some Christian celebrations.

  146. 146
    relatd says:

    “According to the claims, over the course of three hours, the firefighters were subjected to sexual taunts and lewd gestures, and when they did not respond they were subjected to hostile comments and gestures.

    “Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, who also represents the firefighters, argued the constitutional right to free speech also protects the right not to speak. “These men should not have to explain to their families, friends and church congregations that their presence at a celebration of lewdness and obscenity in support of the homosexual agenda was because they were forced there by way of a direct order,” Thompson said, according to WorldNetDaily.com.”

  147. 147
    relatd says:

    JH at 144,

    I live in 1959 and remain there.

  148. 148
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, those are the worldviews and civilisational agenda matches you and others are playing with. At least, the first box. KF

  149. 149
    AaronS1978 says:

    Lol JHolo no more explicit then some Christian celebrations! Either you’ve only gone to some mighty tame pride parades or your perception of Christian religious celebrations equate to nuns and priests dancing down the streets in thongs and Peacock feathers while flashing and grinding their way to holy Righteousness.

  150. 150
    JHolo says:

    Aarons1977, have you ever been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans? Or Carnival in Rio? I’ve been to both, and to a couple pride parades, one in Toronto and one in Sydney. The Pride parades are tame by comparison.

  151. 151
    AaronS1978 says:

    Then check out the pride parades in Nevada, Miami, and I believe California and they will probably blow your mind.

    I might not be saying that there aren’t tame pride parades but I’m also not saying there aren’t crazy ones either

  152. 152
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, Mardi Gras is not a Christian celebration, as well you know, you are again setting up a toxic strawman caricature. Here is the actual counsel of Scripture:

    Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

    Backing that up:

    Isa 5: 11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning,
    that they may run after strong drink,
    who tarry late into the evening
    as wine inflames them!
    12 They have lyre and harp,
    tambourine and flute and wine at their feasts,
    but they do not regard the deeds of the LORD,
    or see the work of his hands . . . .

    18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood,
    who draw sin as with cart ropes,
    19 who say: “Let him be quick,
    let him speed his work
    that we may see it;
    let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near,
    and let it come, that we may know it!”
    20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
    and shrewd in their own sight!
    22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
    and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
    23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    and deprive the innocent of his right!

    More can be said but the pattern of invidious comparisons you have made, backed by obvious lack of remorse or willingness to take correction, speaks for itself.

    Your confirmed credibility is NEGATIVE, you are systematically wrong and often hostile, reflecting crooked yardstick thinking. (Random guessing would be expected to be unbiased.)

    KF

    PS, start with the 1.4+ billion innocents snuffed out under colour of law since the early ’70’s and mounting at another million per week.

  153. 153
    AaronS1978 says:

    @KF

    women’s rights going strong
    Or barbaric procedure dressed as women’s rights that 99% of the time can be easily avoided by practicing safe and responsible sex

    https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

  154. 154
    JHolo says:

    KF: JH, Mardi Gras is not a Christian celebration

    And pigs fly.

    Mardi Gras (/?m??rdi ??r??/) refers to events of the Carnival celebration, beginning on or after the Christian feasts of the Epiphany (Three Kings Day) and culminating on the day before Ash Wednesday, which is known as Shrove Tuesday. Mardi Gras is French for “Fat Tuesday”, reflecting the practice of the last night of eating rich, fatty foods before the ritual Lenten sacrifices and fasting of the Lenten season.

    Carnival and Mardi Gras are examples of pagan rituals co-opted by Christianity to make Christianity more palatable to the “locals”.

    You can’t pretend that regional celebrations conducted in conjunction with Christian holy days aren’t “Christian” simply because they make you uncomfortable.

  155. 155
    AaronS1978 says:

    Actually Mardi Gras was a pagan holiday which originated in Rome as celebration of fertility and spring

    Catholic leaders found it easier to incorporate the tradition into the faith then to abolish it altogether. It also used to be just one day. It has now evolved into a week long celebration

    Church leaders have repeatedly tried restrict Mardi Gras and its hedonistic tendencies because it detracts from Ash Wednesday and the meaning of lent

    Many Christian denominations do not celebrate Mardi Gras and will not celebrated

    It also seems to be more of a cultural celebration now than a Catholic one, but it is a Catholic celebration now.

    However originally it was not a Christian holiday and the only reason why it was incorporated into the religion was to avoid angering people by removing a tradition known as Carnival

    Ps
    I would never take my children to Mardi Gras, ever, Catholic or not.

  156. 156
    JHolo says:

    Aarons1978: Actually Mardi Gras was a pagan holiday which originated in Rome as celebration of fertility and spring

    Catholic leaders found it easier to incorporate the tradition into the faith then to abolish it altogether

    I believe that is the definition of “co-opted.”

  157. 157
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Jholo
    ‘I believe that is the definition of “co-opted.”’
    Somehow you have managed to make
    co-opted(adopt) sound like a negative jab at religion

  158. 158
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Grooming in action in the Children’s section of the library, with dismissiveness to initial objections:

    ASHLAND [July 16, 2022] — Last month, the President of the Library Board of Trustees said she did not believe the placement of pornographic books in the public library’s children section was a big issue since only four people brought the issue to the board’s attention. Problem was, two of the four persons were pastors.

    This past week, two hundred people attended the Ashland Public Library Board of Trustees meeting including fifteen area pastors; an overwhelming majority opposing the board’s position. Because of the massive blowback, one hundred and twenty had to stand outside the room in the overflow. The response even drew elected local and state officials.

    “Today parents, pastors, and elected officials are showing the library board the issue of child-grooming is not just an issue with a few individuals, this is a community taking a determined stand to protect our vulnerable children,” said Melanie Miller, Executive Director of Ashland Pregnancy Care Center. “Today our children are being indoctrinated by the federal government, and now the local-somebody needs to protect them. Because of their age-inappropriate content, these books need to be moved out of the library’s children section.”

    Originally, two parents discovered several controversial books located in the children’s section and brought it to the attention of the Ashland Ministerial Association (AMA). One of the books, entitled “Making a Baby: An inclusive guide to how every family begins” by Rachel Greener, drew their ire.

    While ages 5-8 is the book’s listed reading range, AMA President Pastor Dave McNeely spoke to the board how this was misleading. “This book is grooming children for transgenderism and pedophilia.”

    “I do not think the Board is listening. It appears our taxpayer-funded library has a campaign to end the innocence of our children. If the Library Board of Trustees chooses not to remove the pornographic books from the shelves, we are requesting they move them to the adult section of the library. Neutrality on this issue is not a viable option. We are not going away.”

    “The adult section of the library is the place for books with adult level content,” Pastor John Bouquet told the board last month. “’Making Babies’ is the title, but the pictures in the book are obscene. Displaying naked men exposing naked body parts with a child while showering together is just plain wrong. [–> I think, even in the Adults Section, pervs can borrow and use in the desensitising and subtle indoctrination in tactics phase of grooming. This also gives further context to certain kinds of Library reading times.]

    “I make an appeal to this ruling body: uphold the values of our community. Allow children to experience innocence and protection in a culture where they are the prize to be caught.”

    You explain to me how a Library Board could come to be this desensitised and captured to blatantly, intrinsically disordered conduct.

    Grooming is real and it is in Libraries.

    KF

  159. 159
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, I am not pretending, I have given specific foundational teaching. There may be those who have gone along with such, but the typical activities in such revelry are not those of worship, positive civic conduct etc. I say this as part of a region riddled with such revelry. KF

    PS, Augustine, who was eyewitness to what had been going on and who wrote from familiarity, in City of God:

    entertainments, in which the fictions of poets are the main attraction,
    were not introduced in the festivals of the gods by the ignorant devotion of the Romans,
    but that the gods themselves gave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed ex-
    torted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations in their honor . . . .

    Where and when those initiated in the mysteries of Coelestis received any good instruc-
    tions, we know not.  What we do know is, that before her shrine, in which her image is set,
    and amidst a vast crowd gathering from all quarters, and standing closely packed together,
    we were intensely interested spectators of the games which were going on, and saw, as we
    pleased to turn the eye, on this side a grand display of harlots, on the other the virgin goddess;
    we saw this virgin worshipped with prayer and with obscene rites.  There we saw no shame-
    faced mimes, no actress over-burdened with modesty; all that the obscene rites demanded
    was fully complied with.  We were plainly shown what was pleasing to the virgin deity, and
    the matron who witnessed the spectacle returned home from the temple a wiser woman. 
    Some, indeed, of the more prudent women turned their faces from the immodest movements
    of the players, and learned the art of wickedness by a furtive regard

    [–> another translation puts it, made themselves familiar with the techniques of vice]
    For they were restrained,
    by the modest demeanor due to men, from looking boldly at the immodest gestures; but
    much more were they restrained from condemning with chaste heart the sacred rites of her
    whom they adored.  And yet this licentiousness—which, if practised in one’s home, could
    only be done there in secret—was practised as a public lesson in the temple; and if any
    modesty remained in men, it was occupied in marvelling that wickedness which men could
    not unrestrainedly commit should be part of the religious teaching of the gods, and that to
    omit its exhibition should incur the anger of the gods.
      What spirit can that be, which by a
    hidden inspiration stirs men’s corruption, and goads them to adultery, and feeds on the
    full-fledged iniquity, unless it be the same that finds pleasure in such religious ceremonies,
    sets in the temples images of devils, and loves to see in play the images of vices; that whispers
    in secret some righteous sayings to deceive the few who are good, and scatters in public in-
    vitations to profligacy, to gain possession of the millions who are wicked?

    Compare this with Eph 4 and Isa 5.

  160. 160
    kairosfocus says:

    Meanwhile, no earnest champion armed with substantial arguments stands forth to show just how and why “65 percent of self-described atheists and 43 percent of agnostics [have come to] believe “the findings of science [generally] make the existence of God less probable.” That studied silence coming from the penumbra of attack sites in the end speaks louder than words, as to the true balance on merits. Again, see 21 above ff.

  161. 161
    JHolo says:

    Aarons1968: Somehow you have managed to make
    co-opted(adopt) sound like a negative jab at religion.

    No. It is actually a smart political move. I assume you put up a Christmas tree. That is a co-opted tradition.

  162. 162
    relatd says:

    JH at 154,

    More crap. Just more crap. Your ability to push crap is amazing. That’s not a good thing.

    Mardi Gras was not co-opted for anything. It was do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. There was no requirement to throw Mardi Gras in as an “incentive.” Later, Mardi Gras was infiltrated by sexual perverts to pervert it.

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, let us remember the broken window theory. Use of coarse language or abusive or simply overly angry comments invites a down spiral. KF

  164. 164
    relatd says:

    JH at 156,

    Only Leftists use the term “co-opted.” No normal person uses that term unless influenced by Total Strangers.

  165. 165
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Only Leftists use the term “co-opted.” No normal person uses that term unless influenced by Total Strangers.

    From Wikipedia:

    Co-option or coöption is a process of appointing members to a group, or an act of absorbing or assimilating.

    Co-option or coöption may also refer to: in evolutionary biology, the shift in function of an adaptation

    And

    It may refer to the process of adding members to an elite group at the discretion of members of the body, usually to manage opposition and so maintain the stability of the group. Outsiders are “co-opted” by being given a degree of power on the grounds of their elite status, specialist knowledge, or potential ability to threaten essential commitments or goals (“formal co-optation”). Co-optation may take place in many other contexts, such as a technique by a dictatorship to control opposition.

    Co-optation also refers to the process by which a group subsumes or acculturates a smaller or weaker group with related interests; or, similarly, the process by which one group gains converts from another group by replicating some aspects of it without adopting the full program or ideal (“informal co-optation”). Co-optation is associated with the cultural tactic of recuperation, and is often understood to be synonymous with it.

    Yeah, that’s real leftist thinking there.

  166. 166
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 157,

    JHolo’s primary job here is to take jabs at Christianity.

    Along with promoting 24 hour, non-stop deviant sexual practices.

  167. 167
    relatd says:

    JH at 161,

    More evidence of the above. In the 1950s, the whole point of putting up a Christmas tree was to celebrate the birth of Christ.

    But, for the politically obsessed – they have their own interpretation…

  168. 168
    PaV says:

    JHolo @ 161:

    Are you saying, then, that “co-option” is a by-product of intelligence?

    JHolo @ 145:

    What does that have to do with my comment about pride parades being no more sexually explicit that some religious celebrations? Let me be more specific. Some Christian celebrations.

    In what world is Mardi Gras a “religious” celebration? It is rather an “irreligious” celebration. Ash Wednesday is a Christian, specifically, Catholic celebration, not “Fat Tuesday.” This is just a secularized excuse for excess–as is evident in the name: “Fat Tuesday.” Who celebrates getting fat?

    “The origins of Mardi Gras can be traced to medieval Europe, passing through Rome and Venice in the 17th and 18th centuries to the French House of the Bourbons. From here, the traditional revelry of “Boeuf Gras,” or fatted calf, followed France to her colonies.”

    Mardi Gras is an “Enlightenment” aberration of Christian preparedness. Let’s be honest. As to “Pride Parades,” if you’re really “proud” of yourself, then why do you need a parade? No, Pride Parades are the mere pretense that that which should be considered ‘shameful,’ can be also considered ‘prideful,’ if you loose your moral compass.

  169. 169
    PaV says:

    Here is an interesting item in the history of Mardi Gras in New Orleans–easily found online:

    The earliest reference to Mardi Gras “Carnival” appears in a 1781 report to the Spanish colonial governing body. That year, the Perseverance Benevolent & Mutual Aid Association was the first of hundreds of clubs and carnival organizations formed in New Orleans.

    What likely began as an effort to raise funds for charitable purposes somewhere along the line has lost its ways. The Devil is very clever.

  170. 170
    asauber says:

    People have been decorating trees at various times and for countless reasons throughout history.

    Of course, when Christians do it, they MUST be guilty of some transgression.

    Sigh.

    Andrew

  171. 171
    JVL says:

    Relatd: In the 1950s, the whole point of putting up a Christmas tree was to celebrate the birth of Christ.

    The question is: where did the idea of putting up an evergreen tree for Christmas come from? YOU think of it as being a Christian practice but is that how it started?

    Do you want the rest of us to do the work for you or are you going to look up the history for yourself?

  172. 172
    relatd says:

    “Christian ritual developed when, in the third century, the Church left the Catacombs. Many forms of self-expression must needs be identical, in varying times, places, cults, as long as human nature is the same. Water, oil, light, incense, singing, procession, prostration, decoration of altars, vestments of priests, are naturally at the service of universal religious instinct. Little enough, however, was directly borrowed by the Church—nothing, without being “baptized”, as was the Pantheon. In all these things, the spirit is the essential: the Church assimilates to herself what she takes, or, if she cannot adapt, she rejects it (cf. Augustine, Epp., xlvii, 3, in P.L., XXXIII, 185; “Contra Faust.”, XX, xxiii, ibid., XLII, 387; Jerome, “Epp.”, cix, ibid., XXII, 907). Even pagan feasts may be “baptized”: certainly our processions of April 25 are the Robigalia; the Rogation days may replace the Ambarualia; the date of Christmas Day may be due to the same instinct which placed on December 25, the Natalis Invicti of the solar cult. But there is little of this; our wonder is, that there is not far more [see Kellner, “Heortologie” (Freiburg, 1906). See Christmas; Epiphany. Also Thurston, “Influence of Paganism on the Christian Calendar “in “Month” (1907), pp. 225 sqq.; Duchesne, “Orig. du Culte chrétien”, tr. (London, 1910) passim; Braun, “Die priestlichen Gewänder” (Freiburg, 1897); Idem, “Die pontificalen Gewänder” (Freiburg, 1898); Rouse, “Greek Votive Offerings” (Cambridge, 1902), esp. c. v]. The cult of saints and relics is based on natural instinct and sanctioned by the lives, death, and tombs (in the first instance) of martyrs, and by the dogma of the Communion of Saints; it is not developed from definite instances of hero-worship as a general rule, though often a local martyr-cult was purposely instituted to defeat (e.g.) an oracle tenacious of pagan life (P.G., L, 551; P.L., LXXI, 831; Newman, “Essay on Development, etc.”, II, cc. ix, xii., etc.; Anrich, “Anfang des Heiligenkults, etc.”, Tubingen, 1904: especially Delehaye, “Légendes hagiographiques,” Brussels, 1906). Augustine and Jerome (Ep. cii, 8, in P.L., XXXIII, 377; “C. Vigil.”, vii, ibid., XXXIII, 361) mark wise tolerance ”

    Source: Catholic Answers

  173. 173
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 170,

    For some here, Christianity is this terrible thing. You should have gotten that by now. Christian missionaries just barged into pure pagan communities and told them some story and automatically converted – on a one to one basis – all their pure pagan holidays into Christian ones. And just forgot to tell anyone as the years passed.

  174. 174
    asauber says:

    “You should have gotten that by now.”

    Relatd,

    Oh I got it a looong time ago.

    Andrew

  175. 175
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Notice, the continued evasion of the focal issues in the OP, answered at 21 on? You can bet, that had there been solid answers on the merits to either the self refuting nature of evolutionary materialistic scientism [and its fellow travellers], or to the challenge to account for origins of cosmos, life, major body plans, mind and moral government of freedom, they would have been trumpeted. The evasiveness tells us, therefore, the weight on the merits. And for sure, it does not support the notion that Science somehow makes God improbable. By the nature of the case, as a serious candidate necessary being, God either is as framework to any possible world, or is as impossible of being as a square circle. There are no serious arguments to that end, indeed speaking of probability about God implies possibility of God, which means actuality. Something is very wrong with our intellectual culture and formal and informal education systems. KF

  176. 176
    zweston says:

    What this always heads to is worldview. The atheists bold enough to post on here are entrenched… they will double down always instead of conceding anything.

    Liberals are more active in politics than conservatives… do you know why? Many conservatives are people of faith…they recognize that God is in control of politics and they know how the story ends. Secular people have government as their God, so their livelihoods and entire lifetimes are determined by the government…so they live on every word…and it’s why they are willing to kill (or try) and upend the political structure just because they didn’t get their way.

    It’s worldview. Until people can come to the realization that there is an intelligent designer and only one religion in the world that has fulfilled prophecies, archaeology, historical attestation aside from their own books… then they aren’t interested in jumping in on your political ideas which are informed by your faith worldview.

    It is entertaining though to engage though. guilty as charged. The skeptical arguments and rhetoric and strawmanning are telling of the strength of the darwinist/atheist/agnostic’s strength of arguments.

    If you can’t win the argument…slander the opponent.

    It’s amazing how far people will go to advocate for the destruction of human lives and deviant sexual ethics. The freedom they seek is only greater bondage.

  177. 177
    relatd says:

    Zweston at 176,

    It’s easy to generalize but, based on individual responses, not that difficult to see who is who by what they write. Everything is perception and degree. If a person does not believe in God and does not focus on Him then man must look around and pick another focus. Politics is one.

    This is man following man only. Man is not perfect but a commitment has been made to rely on what men say. God-given truths are myths believed by some. Religion is an impediment, a wall standing between men and what they want.

    On the other hand, the Word of God and truths set forward and offered to men by the Church provide not just a way to Heaven but a life of service to the whole truth. This life is not all there is.

    Some think that as long as the baby growing in the womb cannot feel pain then it’s alright to end that life. But new evidence for fetal pain exists: https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3

    Some think that the elderly should be allowed to die by medical means – called euthanasia. It’s one thing to put animals to “sleep,” but quite another to put the aged to death this way. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, but some believe that “Man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre. And this leads to some people experimenting with their own children and giving them puberty blockers and adults deciding that they have a separate identity from the one they were born to. There is only male and female. These vain imaginings, for some, create confusion, unnecessary confusion. Such experiments do not clarify but divide. The 58 “gender options” on Facebook are part of the worship of man. But this distorts the human being, making him something beyond what he is. This is not good for the individual or society.

    In this way, man becomes god. Rejecting his true identity for one he invents for himself to suit certain moods and attractions.

    Christians know how this story will end. The Mother of God (no, Catholics do not worship Mary) will crush the serpent’s head. The end has been established and told beforehand.

  178. 178
    relatd says:

    “Young conservatives are embracing the “trad wife lifestyle,”

    Gasp !

  179. 179
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The core challenge remains unanswered. Here, it becomes pivotal to observe some remarks on Darwin’s motives and perceptions of the wider significance of his work, as Provine commented:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent

    [==> key theses of nihilism. Citing the just linked IEP: “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.” As without rational, responsible freedom, rationality collapses, Provine implies self referential incoherence. Similarly, ethical foundations include our self evident, pervasive first duties of reason: to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness and justice etc. Provine has given a recipe for gross (and all too common) intellectual irresponsibility.]

    . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

    If the direct implication of a frame of thought is the discredit of the mind we use to arrive at said thought, that is a sign of a self-defeating scheme of thought. Which, is not hard to figure out. So, why has what is self defeating allowed to dominate our thinking? KF

  180. 180
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On some of what Provine points to, we may read in an October 13th, 1880 letter to Edward Bibbins Aveling (a physician, and Common Law husband of Eleanor Marx (1884), thus better known to history as Karl Marx’s de facto son- in- law) in reference to requested remarks on a book by Aveling that sought to popularise Darwin’s thought [apparently, The Student’s Darwin. London: Freethought Publishing Co., 1881], Charles Darwin went on record as follows:

    . . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [–> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [–> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

    This letter makes it utterly clear that a key background motive for Darwin’s theorising on origins science was to put God out of a job, thus indirectly undermining the plausibility of believing in God.

    In thinking and acting like this, he probably believed that he was championing enlightenment and science-led progress in their path to victory over backward, irrational but emotionally clung-to beliefs. And so his strategy was to lead in a science that was in his mind showing just how outdated and ill-founded the Judaeo-Christian theism that had dominated the West since Constantine in the 300’s was.

    However, in fact, the shoe is on the other foot as Provine inadvertently brought out.

    Which brings us right back to Haldane, which needs to be attended to by objectors, if they are responsible:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    We know there is an ever-watching penumbra of attack sites. They are ever ready to pounce on what they think they can overturn. The steadfast silence on this focal point therefore makes plain the actual balance on merits.

    KF

Leave a Reply