PDA

View Full Version : There's a creationism channel



Glom
2007-May-22, 11:22 PM
I just saw it on the cable in TT, obviously imported from the US. They're talking about how the Grand Canyon was formed within a few weeks.

Chuck
2007-May-22, 11:26 PM
I guess creationism is now our main export.

Noclevername
2007-May-23, 12:08 AM
Oh, yuck. On behalf of the USA, I apologize.

Occam
2007-May-23, 12:41 AM
Oh, yuck. On behalf of the USA, I apologize.

On behalf of the godless heathens, I accept your apology.
Now... about your music industry :whistle:

novaderrik
2007-May-23, 01:18 AM
i saw that show.. it was so.. so... informative that i couldn't change the channel.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-May-23, 01:29 AM
So is the creationism channel to science as foxnews is to actual news?

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-23, 02:00 AM
One of the best arguments I've read (aside from the millions of pieces of geologic evidence ;) ) goes something like this: "If God exists, then he must be pretty cruel to virtually litter the planet with evidence that contradicts Creationism." The original statement was much more eloquent than my paraphrasing and I don't remember the author.

novaderrik
2007-May-23, 03:49 AM
i was flipping past when he was talking about some ancient lake that was created up in the mountains as the flood waters receded, and all the fossils that are found in the sediments in the grand canyon were created instantaneously when the lake drained and deposited everything on the ground before the water rushed thru and created the grand canyon- all in a matter of literally days.
he said that if the canyon was formed the way pagan scientists say it was, then there should be a huge delta where the river goes into the ocean..
of course, one has to ask where all the stuff that was washed away to create the canyon in his version wound up. i don't think he covered that one..

Celestial Mechanic
2007-May-23, 04:30 AM
One of the best arguments I've read (aside from the millions of pieces of geologic evidence ;) ) goes something like this: "If God exists, then he must be pretty cruel to virtually litter the planet with evidence that contradicts Creationism." The original statement was much more eloquent than my paraphrasing and I don't remember the author.
In this vein I quote Albert Einstein: "The Lord God is subtle, not malicious."

Gillianren
2007-May-23, 06:05 AM
he said that if the canyon was formed the way pagan scientists say it was, then there should be a huge delta where the river goes into the ocean..

In point of fact, the river doesn't much go into the ocean anymore; it's all diverted to provide water to the desert-dwellers of Southern California. My understanding, however, is that it had a very nice delta 100 years ago.

We get a channel (on the list of channels I'd trade to get Turner Classic Movies) called "TBN": Trinity Broadcasting Network. Yes, kids, 24 hours of televangelism. I don't watch that channel.

novaderrik
2007-May-23, 06:49 AM
i don't think i saw it on TBN- something like ABN. but it is one of those channels. i think it is affiliated with Pat Robertson', since i see him and his goons on there from time to time.
there's always some dude with big perfect hair telling his sob story and trying to get you to send in money because-ah the Lor-dah needs a new yach-tah or the rolle-rah coaste-rah needs to be repaire-dah....

parallaxicality
2007-May-23, 07:10 PM
A question: If the US is such a hotbed of creationism, how is it that most of the world's best science is still done there?

Celestial Mechanic
2007-May-23, 07:18 PM
A question: If the US is such a hotbed of creationism, how is it that most of the world's best science is still done there?
One word: immigrants. :)

Doodler
2007-May-23, 07:19 PM
On behalf of the godless heathens, I accept your apology.
Now... about your music industry :whistle:

One word...

"Eurovision"

;)


As for the Creationism channel, I suppose it fits right in with the other Sunday Mass Delusions channels in the high end of the cable spectrum that do nothing but religious programming.

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-23, 07:20 PM
In this vein I quote Albert Einstein: "The Lord God is subtle, not malicious."

Albert Einstein had a wonderful sense of humor to go with his vast intellect and he was always very eloquent. When asked about the book (paper?) written by mostly Nazi scientists entitled "100 Scientists Against Relativity", he replied, "If I was wrong it would only take one."

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-23, 07:24 PM
In point of fact, the river doesn't much go into the ocean anymore; it's all diverted to provide water to the desert-dwellers of Southern California.

Not just Southern California, although I think they still take the largest share; also Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico. In the next 20-30 years there will be SERIOUS water shortages here in the SW.

Doodler
2007-May-23, 07:26 PM
One word: immigrants. :)

Two words: Cultural Diversity.

Its a far stretch to assume all native born Americans buy this tripe.

parallaxicality
2007-May-23, 07:31 PM
No but half of them do. Interestingly, according to religioustolerance.org, women are far more likely to believe in creationism than men.

Celestial Mechanic
2007-May-23, 07:32 PM
Two words: Cultural Diversity. It's a far stretch to assume all native born Americans buy this tripe.
No, not all Americans buy creationist tripe. But not enough are going into science, either. They're going into business and law instead. :sad:

Noclevername
2007-May-23, 07:32 PM
Its a far stretch to assume all native born Americans buy this tripe.

The sad thing is how many do....

I live in a state where teaching evolution, the Big Bang, and other basic elements of scientific knowledge in school are forbidden by law, and more importantly, by local custom. Start talking about human evolution here and some redneck will tahe your head off.:mad::mad::mad::silenced:

Van Rijn
2007-May-23, 07:50 PM
The sad thing is how many do....

I live in a state where teaching evolution, the Big Bang, and other basic elements of scientific knowledge in school are forbidden by law


So, you aren't in the U.S.?

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-23, 07:58 PM
The sad thing is how many do....

I live in a state where teaching evolution, the Big Bang, and other basic elements of scientific knowledge in school are forbidden by law, and more importantly, by local custom. Start talking about human evolution here and some redneck will tahe your head off.:mad::mad::mad::silenced:

Wow! And I think Arizona is backwards in some respects. Note to self: Don't travel to where Noclevername lives (or through there)...

Palomar
2007-May-23, 09:36 PM
I believe God created the universe via evolution.

A star a mere 1 million light years away proves this didn't all happen a mere 6,000 years ago. The fossil record, carbon dating, etc. And yes, the erosion/water record of the Grand Canyon...c'mon; that took aeons.

The fact that living organisms can and do adapt, etc.

Pure creationists seem to think the universe is static. It isn't. Obviously stars continue being born, the universe is still expanding. The Big Bang was the ball He set rolling...and it continues to roll.

Traditional creationism (static, simple) limits God's glory and greatness; evolution (continual, complex) does just the opposite -- it continually testifies to His limitless power.

However, I don't believe humans evolved from apes. Never did prior to my spiritual experience (former agnostic), never will. God did especially create humans, and originally in His own image.

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-23, 09:54 PM
One word: immigrants. :)That's part of the answer, but I wonder if it explains everything.

Consider this: even if 90% of the U.S. population turns into creationists, you'll always have the other 10% to supply the American universities. It's a big country.

Bonus question: guess in which income bracket those 10% are more likely to be...


One word...

"Eurovision"

;)
Yeahbut at least the Eurovision contest isn't exported all over the world. Plus it's just once a year, not all year round. :)

Noclevername
2007-May-23, 10:02 PM
However, I don't believe humans evolved from apes. Never did prior to my spiritual experience (former agnostic), never will. God did especially create humans, and originally in His own image.


And what is your evidence for this? More importantly, how do you explain all the transitional hominid fossils and other physical evidence of human evolution? Did the devil plant misleading bones in the ground, perhaps?

Also, on a separate note, did you kknow talking about religion is against the rules on this board?

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-May-23, 10:04 PM
One word: immigrants. :)
And money, the americans can throw a lot more money at a problem then most other countries.

korjik
2007-May-23, 10:06 PM
The sad thing is how many do....

I live in a state where teaching evolution, the Big Bang, and other basic elements of scientific knowledge in school are forbidden by law, and more importantly, by local custom. Start talking about human evolution here and some redneck will tahe your head off.:mad::mad::mad::silenced:

Where exactly is that? Even Kansas creationists got told to bug off.

Noclevername
2007-May-23, 10:11 PM
Indiana. Technically, it's not illegal, it's "de-emphasized", but in practice it's definitely something you don't mention amid certain parts of the population.

korjik
2007-May-23, 10:13 PM
No but half of them do. Interestingly, according to religioustolerance.org, women are far more likely to believe in creationism than men.

Are we considering intelligent design to be creationism? There is some difference, and the real creationists are much less than 50%.

korjik
2007-May-23, 10:15 PM
A question: If the US is such a hotbed of creationism, how is it that most of the world's best science is still done there?

Dont take american media too seriously. Even the best is not very accurate

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-23, 10:16 PM
And money, the americans can throw a lot more money at a problem then most other countries.Which is what they do to high-skilled immigrants. The two things are related.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-May-23, 11:23 PM
Which is what they do to high-skilled immigrants. The two things are related.
Well have to offer them money first.

Palomar
2007-May-24, 12:01 AM
Noclevername wrote: Also, on a separate note, did you kknow talking about religion is against the rules on this board?

Are you a Moderator?

I'm not talking about religion, I'm speaking only of my own spiritual beliefs; is that "against the rules"?

I don't proselytize. However, I have the right to express myself same as anyone else on a topic -- provided it's within message board rules.

Will one of the Moderators please clarify? Privately, if you prefer.


Did the devil

Now who's wanting to continue a "religious" discussion? Lol.


plant misleading bones in the ground, perhaps?

I have an IQ of 130. If you disagree with what I've stated so far, that's your prerogative...but that's no call for condescending insults. Also, please don't assume you know my beliefs. Thank you.

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 12:49 AM
"God did especially create humans, and originally in His own image."

I don't know how to interpret this as a non-religious statement. And if you make a claim such as this on a science board, one which contradicts all known evidence, expect to have it challenged.

As far as your beliefs go, I'm judging only by your own statement.

Harry Palmer
2007-May-24, 01:39 AM
Niagra Falls, Doggerland, Black Sea and Rhone Glacier were formed or disappeared under 100,000 years ago. Is there any process, even in theory, whereby the Grand Canyon could be formed, not in days , but in 100,000 years?

Ronald Brak
2007-May-24, 02:15 AM
A question: If the US is such a hotbed of creationism, how is it that most of the world's best science is still done there?

American scientists aren't creationists. And Japan produces almost almost three and a half times as many patents as the USA does per head of population. So while world class science is done in the US, it isn't in front on a per captia basis.

I did meet a creationist geologist in Australia once. She had a job designing web pages.

I think there is a lesson in that for us all.

Ronald Brak
2007-May-24, 02:22 AM
Niagra Falls, Doggerland, Black Sea and Rhone Glacier were formed or disappeared under 100,000 years ago. Is there any process, even in theory, whereby the Grand Canyon could be formed, not in days , but in 100,000 years?

Rain falls and ice melts. Water flows down hill. As the water flows it erodes dirt. Eventually it erodes down to a layer of hard rock that wears away very slowly. When the water gets to the end of this hard rock it erodes the softer rock more quickly resulting in a waterfall. You get a waterfall. Pieces of the layer of harder rock slowly break off and the waterfall moves upstream, getting higher (since water flows downhill). This continues until you have something like Niagra Falls which is still moving upstream this day.

Jim
2007-May-24, 02:31 AM
Are you a Moderator?

I am.


I'm not talking about religion, I'm speaking only of my own spiritual beliefs; is that "against the rules"?

I don't proselytize. However, I have the right to express myself same as anyone else on a topic -- provided it's within message board rules.

Will one of the Moderators please clarify? Privately, if you prefer.

Publicly is better; it reminds everyone.

Rule 12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

D) In the Bad Astronomy Stories section only, focused, polite discussion of topics or issues brought up in the originating post. Do not start a new thread there with your own topics, and do not take the discussion to another forum section.

Partisan political debate is unwelcome anywhere but in the Bad Astronomy Stories section (see 12D above) and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, outside of the Bad Astronomy Stories section you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

(emphasis added)


I have an IQ of 130.

On this board, that's a dangerous statement to make. Unless you're trying for the sympathy vote.


If you disagree with what I've stated so far, that's your prerogative...but that's no call for condescending insults. Also, please don't assume you know my beliefs. Thank you.

Good advice, for everyone.

Glom
2007-May-24, 02:37 AM
I'm hearing funny stories from a geologist who worked in a museum in the bible belt. He used to occasionally get Creationist parties in for the tour. During the tour, they'd be polite, but then they'd send him thank you letters after the fact saying, "Jesus loves you even though you lied to us."

Palomar
2007-May-24, 03:14 AM
B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Thanks Jim. I hope I've remained within those rules.

"I have an IQ of 130."


On this board, that's a dangerous statement to make. Unless you're trying for the sympathy vote.

Nope. Scored 130 on an IQ test I took while working, no less.

I've nothing further to add. Thanks again. :)

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 03:36 AM
All right, calmed down, took my meds. I'll ask in a straightforward, non-condescending way. Palomar, what evidence do you have to back up your claim?

Gillianren
2007-May-24, 06:40 AM
Are we considering intelligent design to be creationism? There is some difference, and the real creationists are much less than 50%.

There's not enough difference for me to consider them separate, especially if you note what a lot of prominent IDers turn out to be when you scratch off their surface veneers.

Me, I follow evidence in science. If scientists can show me evidence that something happened in a certain way, I'll likely go for that explanation. The alternative here seems to be believing in a malignant force that wants us to be deluded.

And Noclevername, I advise getting a heck of a lot of media attention on the problem!

Maksutov
2007-May-24, 08:07 AM
I just saw it on the cable in TT, obviously imported from the US. They're talking about how the Grand Canyon was formed within a few weeks.The Home Shopping Network is on cable too. They're both selling something.

At least most of the HSN stuff comes with a warranty.

I remember back when cable was first introduced (late 1970s). One of the selling points was commercial-free TV. Then the phrase "paid programming" was invented, and so much for that selling point.

Maksutov
2007-May-24, 08:09 AM
Are we considering intelligent design to be creationism? There is some difference, and the real creationists are much less than 50%.ID is just creationism in sheepish clothing, trying to get into the public schools through the back door.

parallaxicality
2007-May-24, 09:07 AM
Here's a pretty comprehensive analysis of the stats by the ever-dependable Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

There's no getting around it; nearly half of the US believes in literal creation.

Maksutov
2007-May-24, 09:20 AM
[edit]There's no getting around it; nearly half of the US believes in literal creation.Based on personal experience, lopping off the portion of the US located below the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi and letting it sink into the Atlantic would change those poll results radically.

That would leave a few isolated pockets, and Arizona/California.

In that regard it appears global warming is your friend.

:)

parallaxicality
2007-May-24, 09:24 AM
la la la la la la la la....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Newnewmap.jpg

WaxRubiks
2007-May-24, 09:48 AM
I think that those of us who believe in evolution shouldn't forget or should try to appreciate how strange evolution is. I mean that our great great great....(time's Xmillion)th grandmother was a mud hopper, that is bizarre and surreal in a beautiful way. I think sometimes we forget(well I do).
Sometimes I appreciate the fear that some creationists must feel when they glimpse(some of them must do) how evolution works.
I believe in God but at the end of the day we were not directly made by him which can be a little disconcerting.
I see the Universe as like a garden to God and he just sits and watches things grow and does the odd bit of weeding or if he thinks that there is hope for a particular plant, he may just do a bit of pruning.

3rdvogon
2007-May-24, 10:22 AM
Hey Guys! remember the fossils were all carefully placed by Slartibardfast to give the humans something to work with as their culture worked towards explaining 42, this was probably one of the last tasks he performed before he wrote his signature on the glacier near Narvik. If you can't find Slarti's signature then blame it on Global Warming!

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-24, 10:27 AM
All right, calmed down, took my meds. I'll ask in a straightforward, non-condescending way. Palomar, what evidence do you have to back up your claim?I don't think Palomar needs any evidence, so long as he confines his claim to personal faith.

On the other hand, I would like to ask you, Palomar, why it is that you accept that God created the universe through evolution, but cannot believe that he created mankind the same way...

3rdvogon
2007-May-24, 01:13 PM
I think that those of us who believe in evolution shouldn't forget or should try to appreciate how strange evolution is. I mean that our great great great....(time's Xmillion)th grandmother was a mud hopper, that is bizarre and surreal in a beautiful way. I think sometimes we forget(well I do).


How can we forget that. There can hardly be anyone in the UK who watches TV who has not seen this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQiAtUIiW5Q

Well the Creationists may have their own minority radio/TV to get their message out but at least we secular drinkers have mainstream TV and Guinness on our side. On this side of the pond my money is on the drinkers

parallaxicality
2007-May-24, 01:37 PM
What really gets me is that, coming from a mixed secular/religious background, even excluding the mountains of evidence and predictive ability, the story of life as revealed by science is just so much more interesting than the book of Genesis.

phunk
2007-May-24, 03:15 PM
Nope. Scored 130 on an IQ test I took while working, no less.

I've nothing further to add. Thanks again. :)

And I scored 165 on the last one I took. I don't brag about it though, in fact this is the first time I've even mentioned it in years. IQ tests are overrated as a means of measuring actual intelligence.

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-24, 03:21 PM
And I scored 165 on the last one I took. I don't brag about it though, in fact this is the first time I've even mentioned it in years. IQ tests are overrated as a means of measuring actual intelligence.

Have I mentioned that my intellect was boosted by that funny looking machine down in the Krell lab and is now off scale? I am now capable of comprehending the entire universe. So there!

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 03:31 PM
Sometimes I appreciate the fear that some creationists must feel when they glimpse(some of them must do) how evolution works.

Brings to mind the phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". They know just enough to seem weird, without knowing enough to convince.


I recently had someone here ask me, "you really think men came from apes?"

"yes"

"Well, then where did apes come from?"

It was a little disturbing, and a little saddening.

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 03:35 PM
IQ test are just like any standardized test-- only good for determining a few limited aspects of intellect.

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-24, 03:36 PM
Brings to mind the phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". They know just enough to seem weird, without knowing enough to convince.


I recently had someone here ask me, "you really think men came from apes?"

"yes"

"Well, then where did apes come from?"

It was a little disturbing, and a little saddening.

"yes" is the wrong answer. All the apes living today (including us) evolved from a common ancestor.

korjik
2007-May-24, 03:47 PM
Here's a pretty comprehensive analysis of the stats by the ever-dependable Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

There's no getting around it; nearly half of the US believes in literal creation.

No comment on straightdope, but I do think the data he is working from is biased. No real evidence, but it smells to me like bad data set. I would need to see the particulars on how the survey was done. I dont intend this to be political, but since the last couple US pres elections, I dont really believe any poll.

For full disclosure, I live in Houston. Near enough to the bible belt that we get a depressingly high number of creationist types, but not 45%. I could be wrong, but I dont think I am that isolated. I would also point out that Kansas got rid of their creationist school board last election also.

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 03:54 PM
"yes" is the wrong answer. All the apes living today (including us) evolved from a common ancestor.


Yes, a common ape ancestor. We're just a mutant branch off the Pansicus tree.

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-24, 04:07 PM
Yes, a common ape ancestor. We're just a mutant branch off the Pansicus tree.

I agree. Some days I'm more fond of Chimpanzees than humans.

Gerrsun
2007-May-24, 05:15 PM
Based on personal experience, lopping off the portion of the US located below the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi and letting it sink into the Atlantic would change those poll results radically.

That would leave a few isolated pockets, and Arizona/California.

In that regard it appears global warming is your friend.

:)


We tried to leave, we wanted to go, but NOoooooooo!

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-24, 05:38 PM
No comment on straightdope, but I do think the data he is working from is biased. No real evidence, but it smells to me like bad data set. I would need to see the particulars on how the survey was done. I dont intend this to be political, but since the last couple US pres elections, I dont really believe any poll.The data is from Gallup and the Pew Research Center. They are no dummies.

Several polls over the years, from various sources, point in the same direction. More here. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

novaderrik
2007-May-24, 06:53 PM
creationism is just so nice and convenient to believe. it requires no effort on your part- it is written in the Book, and so it has been done.
a rather large portion of the population doesn't want to think for themselves. education isn't something they ever got- and it's usually not their fault.
i have relatives down in Alabama- they kind of have their own family trailer park- and if any of them ever questions anything, or tries to make their life better thru education, they are essentially "cast off the island" for thinking they are "better" than everyone else. the kids aren't taught how to learn or question anything- and, as such, they think the biblical word is the only word that matters.
i don't really know any of them- but i don't think i'd get along with them. i don't care if they are religious- but i don't like it when anyone sees their chosen book of God as the only source for answers. that viewpoint leaves almost no room to question anything- i question EVERYTHING..

parallaxicality
2007-May-24, 07:29 PM
I have to ask, why are women so much more likely to be creationists than men? I mean I can't come up with an answer myself without falling back on eighteenth century stereotypes about male rationality vs. feminine intuition.

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-24, 07:49 PM
People in lower income brackets are also more likely to be creationist. Maybe that's enough to explain it. (Just a random guess.)

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-24, 07:58 PM
People in lower income brackets are also more likely to be creationist. Maybe that's enough to explain it. (Just a random guess.)

If that is indeed true, then it has to be that those folks are less likely to finish High School or go on to college where they might have more exposure to science (and other people).

An aside... It irks me when someone doesn't know the scientific meaning of "Theory". They always start off with: "Well, Evolution is just a Theory so....".

A.DIM
2007-May-24, 08:10 PM
This is hilarious considering how when founded, the US was one of very few world civs without a national religion.

:clap:

A.DIM
2007-May-24, 08:23 PM
What's worse is scientists in creationists' clothing:

Evolution and Christian Faith (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof85.htm).

The Language of God (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm).


Only in America?

Noclevername
2007-May-24, 08:59 PM
This is hilarious considering how when founded, the US was one of very few world civs without a national religion.

Hilarious in a laugh-to-keep-from-crying kinda way...

Ronald Brak
2007-May-24, 10:22 PM
"yes" is the wrong answer. All the apes living today (including us) evolved from a common ancestor.

Yea old hominid fossils look very apelike. That is, they look pretty human.

Delvo
2007-May-25, 02:35 AM
I have to ask, why are women so much more likely to be creationists than men? I mean I can't come up with an answer myself without falling back on eighteenth century stereotypes about male rationality vs. feminine intuition.The trouble with avoiding stereotypes is that sometimes it becomes denial of the facts of life because some stereotypes are true.


This is hilarious considering how when founded, the US was one of very few world civs without a national religion.Some theorize that the lack of past oppression by an authoritative religion for the people to get sick of and turn against is the reason why Americans didn't end up rejecting religion as thoroughly as Europeans have.

Bearded One
2007-May-25, 02:46 AM
Some theorize that the lack of past oppression by an authoritative religion for the people to get sick of and turn against is the reason why Americans didn't end up rejecting religion as thoroughly as Europeans have.
I had to read that a couple of times. I hate being a language critic, but a little more punctuation would have been appreciated. :)

Do you have a cite for that? I don't remember hearing about that theory, but then I don't remember a lot of things anymore :(

Maksutov
2007-May-25, 02:54 AM
Have I mentioned that my intellect was boosted by that funny looking machine down in the Krell lab and is now off scale? I am now capable of comprehending the entire universe. So there!Beware of the Id!

Noclevername
2007-May-25, 03:05 AM
Some theorize that the lack of past oppression by an authoritative religion for the people to get sick of and turn against is the reason why Americans didn't end up rejecting religion as thoroughly as Europeans have.

Oh, great, you mean we have to wait until AFTER we've suffered through a theocracy to finally be free?

Tucson_Tim
2007-May-25, 03:10 AM
Oh, great, you mean we have to wait until AFTER we've suffered through a theocracy to finally be free?

I think we're suffering under one now. Oops - probably shouldn't have said that...

Noclevername
2007-May-25, 03:11 AM
Not yet, but we're getting there....

Doodler
2007-May-25, 03:28 AM
Not yet, but we're getting there....

Close enough, thanks. I'm thinking its time for a second wave of the Puritan Pilgrimage.

Maybe dump them in Africa. The next Thanksgiving can be about the Quakers and the Darfuri...

parallaxicality
2007-May-25, 05:26 AM
The most widely accepted theory I've heard concering European vs American religious values is simply that Europeans live in states with established religions, such as Anglicanism or Catholicism. If you're born a Catholic, raised a Catholic and know you're going to die a Catholic, your religion becomes a bit like your eye colour; something very much a part of you but in most circumstances pretty much invisible. It's similar to the situation among Jews, which, I think, is why virtually every Jew I know is an atheist.

In America, there is no established religion, so religions have to compete for converts. This means that a greater proportion of Americans have the luxury of choosing thier faith, so they are more likely to take it seriously. Plus, religions that are interested in gaining as many converts as possible have found that the best way to fill hallowed ground to the rafters is to resort to what are euphamistically called "charismatic" techniques, which basically means shouting a lot and passing judgements. This is certainly true in the UK, where the established churches are empty, but the charismatic churches are full. It's interesting to note that the most religious countries in Europe are the former Communist countries, which had their religion denied to them for so long. Nothing makes religion more desirable than its absence, which is why I've always found people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett so wrongheaded. If you want to get rid of religion, the last thing you should do is directly challenge it, or, God forbid, legislate against it. Religions thrive on adversity, and believers are all the more passionate if they think their faith is being undermined by state or alien powers. The most religious Jews are in Israel; the most fanatical Protestants in the UK are in Northern Ireland. As Europe (and indeed China) have shown, the best path towards secularisation is not to get rid of religion, but to make religion so boring that no one notices it any more.

Noclevername
2007-May-25, 05:37 AM
...the best path towards secularisation is not to get rid of religion, but to make religion so boring that no one notices it any more.

Yeah, that's why I'm a lapsed Catholic:)

3rdvogon
2007-May-25, 08:28 AM
The most widely accepted theory I've heard concering European vs American religious values is simply that Europeans live in states with established religions, such as Anglicanism or Catholicism. your religion becomes a bit like your eye colour; something very much a part of you but in most circumstances pretty much invisible.

This is certainly true in the UK, where the established churches are empty, but the charismatic churches are full. It's interesting to note that the most religious countries in Europe are the former Communist countries, which had their religion denied to them for so long. Nothing makes religion more desirable than its absence, which is why I've always found people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett so wrongheaded. If you want to get rid of religion, the last thing you should do is directly challenge it, or, God forbid, legislate against it. Religions thrive on adversity, and believers are all the more passionate if they think their faith is being undermined by state or alien powers.

I agree entirely - All we have done in the UK is slowly erode the laws that protected the use of Sunday for religious purposes. Give people commercial alternatives and they will take them. It is far wiser not to persecute a religion but at the same time is wise to deny it special protections that give it a social advantage. Religion should learn to live or die on its own by simply competing for the attention of humanity in among all other worldly interests.

If people really feel they have some sort of spiritual self then allow them to explore it. I do not care one way or the other providing their practices do not break existing criminal laws (human sacrifice etc). As you say the traditional churches in the UK have been in decline for some time now while the charistmatics have been growing, nonetheless even those still reperesent a small fraction of the population. As I understand it one of the main growth areas in UK religion are the Wiccans - their beliefs are more attractive to women and of course sit very easily with the liberal environmentalist and Gaia movement.

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-25, 03:57 PM
The most widely accepted theory I've heard concering European vs American religious values is simply that Europeans live in states with established religions, such as Anglicanism or Catholicism. If you're born a Catholic, raised a Catholic and know you're going to die a Catholic, your religion becomes a bit like your eye colour; something very much a part of you but in most circumstances pretty much invisible. It's similar to the situation among Jews, which, I think, is why virtually every Jew I know is an atheist. I think that theory falls apart the moment one notices that there's a wide world out there, besides Europe and the United States. In Latin America or Asia, or even Africa, there is often very little religious diversity too, and yet people are generally as religious as Americans.


It's interesting to note that the most religious countries in Europe are the former Communist countries, which had their religion denied to them for so long. Nothing makes religion more desirable than its absence, which is why I've always found people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett so wrongheaded.Where did you get that idea from? There are one or two exceptions, such as Poland, but the vast majority of ex-communist countries have more atheists than any other part of Europe, except Scandinavia!


As Europe (and indeed China) have shown, the best path towards secularisation is not to get rid of religion, but to make religion so boring that no one notices it any more.LOL. Now, that I can agree with. :D

Lurking Nerd
2007-May-25, 05:21 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm a lapsed Catholic:)

I prefer the term God-fearing Atheist. I don't really believe in a God, but I fear I may be wrong.

Noclevername
2007-May-25, 05:22 PM
A Catholic upbringing does tend to leave one fearful.

Disinfo Agent
2007-May-25, 05:42 PM
I liked that one, but I fear we may be straying a bit too close to the bounds of the forum. ;)

Noclevername
2007-May-25, 05:52 PM
Okay, how about I call myself an "active agnostic" instead of a lapsed you-know-what?

Gillianren
2007-May-25, 09:25 PM
I have to ask, why are women so much more likely to be creationists than men? I mean I can't come up with an answer myself without falling back on eighteenth century stereotypes about male rationality vs. feminine intuition.

Well, I'm not a creationist and never have been, but I am a woman, so I'll try answering from a female perspective.

Women are, shall we say, not encouraged to learn about science and math. There's still a strong bias in a lot of educational circles that women are only good at the humanities and men are better at hard science and math. Therefore, few women get the quality of science education--sometimes even in the same classroom!--as men. If we're not taught science, how are we to know what it says about something?

Now, Gods know that there are women a-plenty who are very good at math and science, though Gods also know that I am not one of them. However, especially in certain religious circles, women aren't really encouraged to be educated at all, least of all in "difficult" subjects. At least, I'm guessing that the problem is based on all of that.