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
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.Silver Asiatic
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
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.Marfin
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
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.Silver Asiatic
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
@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-husbandsAaronS1978
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
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.Silver Asiatic
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
@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 ChorusLieutenant Commander Data
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
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.Marfin
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
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.” Vividvividbleau
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
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]
kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
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.]
kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
@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.AndyClue
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
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. :)JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
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.Seversky
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
JH that you implicitly equate sunday school with agit prop tells volumes, none of it good. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
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.JHolo
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
@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 sameAaronS1978
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
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."relatd
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
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.relatd
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
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."relatd
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
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.relatd
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
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.Caspian
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
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.Silver Asiatic
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
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.Silver Asiatic
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply