Creationists plan British theme park

[G4Z]

In general though it'd be nice to think of Hexus, especially at this time of year, as a place where we do show respect for others.

hah, what do I care what time of year it is, I am a total heathen!

[kalniel]

hah, what do I care what time of year it is, I am a total heathen!

Then I expect you to follow the GD rules all year round

[usxhe190]

sorry, i think there is a misunderstanding - my statement of the previous post is
there are scientists i know who somehow can mash science and faith together - and no i don't think they are stupid

And the next sentence was,
Who in the this world really thinks themselves as a "true" atheists..i.e. 100% probability that god does not exist - i don't even think the out spoken Richard Dawkins would think that...

sorry if i have lead anyone astray but please do note there are varying degrees to the definitions of atheists, agnostics and religious...like all things in life

[G4Z]

Also, while my partner like many people was indoctrinated by Catholic school I don't hate people, I hate the idea. Its an idea that blinds people to reality and encourages ignorance, in this day and age we should be beyond this. I and many others I am sure, would like leave this supernatural-moon worshipping-backward idea of religion behind and move on to a real era of enlightenment. The way I see it, the only way we will progress as a species is if people stand up and call people like these creationists out for what they really are and push these ridiculous ideas into obscurity.

[JPreston]

'Respect for others' is one thing, respect for every crazy bronze age fantasy that the self-important drooling clueless of the world insist on foisting on everyone around them is something else entirely.

It is not correct that religious dogmas deserves a free ride from being challenged. Just because certain ideas are utterly baseless and incapable of standing up to even minimal scrutiny, does not mean that rational people ought to tip-toe around them.

[usxhe190]

unfortunately, in the UK, as long as it is not breaking the law...people here have freedom of religion so people can reject, accept, change any religion they want (i guess unlike places like Iran, China, etc)

edit - i agree that people (religious or not) shouldn't "impose" their beliefs on others but that doesn't mean they can't "market"....

[kalniel]

But are they 'foisting' here on Hexus in a disrespectful way?

But in this instance I was more refering to the I think you spout rubbish for the hell of it type comments.

[TooNice]

unfortunately [...]

Personally, I think it is a good thing. We have easier access to information than ever, so it comes down to whether the current society as a whole wishes to embrace science and nothing else. Personally, I don't see that happening. Not everyone will be/is inclined to be a scientist, yet people still want answers. Or perhaps the idea that there is nothing after you are gone is just too difficult to accept for some. If religion can ease their mind and allow them to go about a productive daily life then I have no problem with it (it's not like every profession requires one to be a 'strong atheist').

I's not like that someone who believes in a religion is automatically a 'loon', who can not contribute positively to society in some other way. And just like there are 'Strong' vs 'Weak' atheism, I reckon that the same apply to faith. People are willing to bend the beliefs - they may go to church every Sunday, and yet see a doctor instead of finding an exorcist. Whatever floats their boats, as long as they are not fanatics who believe that blowing themselves up and taking all the 'infidels' with them will provide passage to heaven.

[G4Z]

i know some scientists who are religious or are agnostics edging on theists...
who really think themselves as "true" atheists...

That is what you said, now looking at it again in light of your comments it doesn't seem to make much sense at all. I never at any point said that religious scientists didn't exist. It is my firm belief that the people who fall into that category are willingly doublethinking around their faith.

[Rosaline]

Y'know, I go to all the trouble of a nice post about how science and spirituality (which can have it's basis in the teachings of a religion) can and should (for now) co-exist, yet it seems to have gone unnoticed...

We would have far less of an issue with such disagreements if it were not for the actions of those in power within religions, who have perverted their spiritual intent into a system for power, domination and control. Without such things, there is less need for the teaching of the literal following of the written works. And without the literal following, there is not the problem with 'doublespeak'.

[G4Z]

heh, Hi Rosaline, I read your post and you made some interesting points. I have to say I think the question about spirituality being an evolved trait is interesting but I can only speak about myself and I know that I do not have any spiritual leanings at all. When I think about the origins of the universe and stuff, I think about the stuff I read in science articles and not much else to be honest.

You are certainly right about organised religion being a 'bad thing'.

[MadduckUK]

it seems people are getting psychology and science horribly mixed. yes there are certainly vague crossovers along the way, but one should really not be looking for all the reasons for religion in science alone.

a good example of science would be a rainbow. who knows how many people have put that down to some divine being and worshipped it. this is obviously science > psychology. whereas the something as formidable as "faith" could be traced to psychology and the need to feel safer/ part of something / not TOTALLY in control of what were doing. something that many including myself would file as something under human instincts.. psychology department for you

[G4Z]

And instinct comes from evolution right?

[MadduckUK]

yes i would say so, but im not sure how much or if at all instinct is actually evolving. id think right now its on the back burner and until such a time as it is actually useful in daily life it will remain that way... its just a sign of evolution slowing as the world becomes more hospitable, and the likelihood of death through lack of instinct / your toes aren't quite long enough is very very minimal.

evolution IS based on survival of the fittest after all, and when that stops being necessary then so does evolution.

so evolution is pretty much down to if ladies like taller men right now

[pollaxe]

I'm an agnostic, I don't know if God or anything of that sort of thing exists. It might but I certainly wouldn't put money on it.

I have no problem with faith but religion (because it's codified, made by man etc) is always going to be flawed, politicised and up for discussion or attack when it deserves it. I agreed with the thrust of Rosaline's post, I've had a few of what I would call spiritual experiences. Whether they were just that or hallucinations however, I don't know. Sometimes I think they were spiritual whereas the next day I will put them down to natural/rational occurrences. Islam was once a great religion of learning (mainly due to Greek influence on Arabian cultures) but it seems to be moving backwards in many places now. I'm not a fan of Catholicism for many reasons but its un-scriptural opposition to birth control and the subsequent overpopulation and spread of killer diseases that this engenders in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world are good reasons enough. Religion is inevitably about control. Faith on the other hand, is no bad thing when it's personal.

I know a number of religious and atheistic people and I don't think any of them has a moral code I'd regard as being inferior or superior.

The problem with Creationism and what these people are doing isn't because they're Christian. I'd have no problem with a Christian-themed park - it'd probably be very boring indeed for the likes of myself who is skeptical and sees the influence of pagan mythologies being woven into the life story of Christ - but if people want to go and see it, good for them. A true Christian would be a fine individual indeed (though I have to say there are few christians that I've met who I would consider to be true Christians [capitalisations mine].) However, this isn't what's going on here. Creationism has a goal - it's trying to refute Darwinism and provide an alternative explanation to evolution based on ancient ideas. To do this, they cherry pick bits of information and then dress it up like the science they detest. Their motivation is simple: because they don't like science disproving scriptural assertations or models of creation. This is the same kind of mindset that put Gallileo under lock and key and under pain of death for his heliocentric theories. His observations went against the written word (which came directly from God or his direct agents) and therefore he was stamped down and his work suppressed for a long, long time. Do we want to even encourage that kind of thought process or control in the modern world?

Scientists observe the world and the workings of the universe and come up with some pretty clever ways of describing and predicting what goes on. It can be stark, clinical and (as Rosaline said) without any particular moral code. It can also be inspiring, humbling and extremely beautiful. Science is what it is, ultimately.

They say if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics. It's also a standard thing that's brought up by religious types when they're discussing science and why they don't like it or how scientists don't really understand it. No, they probably don't - not yet, but they will one day, you can bet on it. Any good scientist will tell you they don't have all the answers (that's what drives science) and any good religious person should tell you the same. Steve Jones observed in In the Blood: God, Genes and Destiny that religious ideas often evolve to encompass scientific discoveries so it's a two-way street at times with religion not being afraid to borrow (and adapt) some of the good stuff and reject some of the stuff they don't like.

It's good we have free speech and the ability to talk about things which can be difficult - places like this are excellent means for people all over the world to discuss all kinds of subjects and, for all the nonsense that goes on in the interweb, this is a good thing for humanity, I feel. But, most of us wouldn't welcome a theme park which denied the Holocaust, in fact it would be illegal. I don't think many people would visit a Flat Earth theme-park, either - at least I hope not. How about Scientology World? Maybe the 'church' would stump up several billion pounds into the UK education system, the only catch being Scientology would then be taught as a mandatory subject in all schools. But if all or any of these places/schemes were built/implemented and the people behind them had the money and the desire to get their ideas taught in schools or to influence up-and-coming generations when all (or most of) the evidence is to the contrary then people should be worried. This is precisely why a Creationist establishment is so concerning. As is their influence on politics in America (and places like Romania) and the spread of their poison into the education system over there. It's getting worse too. Their motives may be well-meaning (I knew a Creationist, he was a nice chap but he was deluded!) but they're also dangerous and they're also patently wrong and are simply a knee-jerk reaction at inconvenient truths. I can respect all faiths but I don't want what these people believe taught in schools where my kids go. If they come to believe it later on, once they have a better grasp of the facts then that's their decision.

Science describes the nuts and bolts of the universe. It does this very well. So, let's keep the science classes pure and teach science. In religious education studies or philosophy classes then teach that there are people who don't believe in evolution but keep them there and not in the science class. What they're advocating as an alternative isn't science at all, it's dogma and ignorance dressed up to look like something else.

God may've created the universe, He may be responsible for the behaviour of every atom and beyond into weird quantum bounds of behaviour (I don't know) but if the Creationists have their way then we'll be making a kind of environment where we can teach that an internal combustion engine is actually powered by fire elementals. Leave the theology where it belongs - out of the science class.

This is not an anti-religious standpoint, just an anti-creationist one.

[Rosaline]

I love Hexus Most places, if you were to say "did no one read my post?", you'd get flamed. Here, you get intellectual discussion

Many people may claim not to have no spiritual leanings at all and simply follow science, but if in science you find awe, wonder and a sense of purpose, and a sense of something greater than yourself, that is in effect spiritual.

As for my own beliefs, as people are probably curious, I'd say I'm a Buddhist Christian Minbari Scientist Buddhist, as in the teachings of compassion, understanding and enjoyment and valuing of every moment (some very great books on this) Christian, in the true sense of following the three Holy doctrines (love God, love thyself, love thy neighbour - that's officially all that matters). Minbari, as they worship the universe, and the universe or whatever exists beyond it is what I consider to be God. And scientist, because you can't value the universe and not be, and because it is the best guide to matters other than morality and finding fulfilment in life.

So yeah, I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing