Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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

Comments
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.JHolo
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
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.AaronS1978
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
JVL, those are the worldviews and civilisational agenda matches you and others are playing with. At least, the first box. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
JH at 144, I live in 1959 and remain there.relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
"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."relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
JH at 142, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/21855/firefighters-forced-to-participate-in-gay-pride-parade-win-legal-battlerelatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
AC at 139, God knows who you are.relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
@SA LOL no bodies god I hope notAaronS1978
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
@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?AndyClue
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
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 HedinCaspian
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
SA at 133, Having sex with some random person is more important than getting some STD. Get with the abnormal program :)relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Seversky at 135, Puritanism, Yes! I live in 1959! Shall I go on?relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
It's good to know Puritanism is still alive and well.Seversky
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
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.zweston
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Depends, what type of STD did you get?
And whose wife were you cheating with?Silver Asiatic
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
AS1978 at 131, Thanks to you, a new edit: STDs Are Fun! Until You Get The One Bob Got And Then You Die.relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
“When We Consent, We Shouldn’t Feel Terrible After, Right?” Depends, what type of STD did you get?AaronS1978
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
"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?relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
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.JVL
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
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.relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
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.relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
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.JVL
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
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.JVL
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
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.Marfin
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply