I can understand why people think that “biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics” might be controversial, but I’m having a tough time figuring out why physics is on the list.
Is it the Planck constant? String Theory? General relativity?
Exact thinking? Experimental proofs?
4 Likes
neither astrophysics (large scale) nor particle physics (small scale) confirmed $deity?
and Heisenberg’s uncertainty runs circles around omniscience : )
2 Likes
You underestimate the self-delusion mojo of conservatives with a psycho-christian bent. If anything repeated loss ends up being their proof that they were not wingnutty enough! That they had to go full Christian Taliban Dominionist!
Whereas sane people who give a crap about the world around them would see the devastation caused by such idiocy, that crowd revels in it and looks to blame others for their predicament.
If Kansas were closer to Mexico, we could offer to sell it to them. But at this point we either have to hope the wingnut crowd accidentally kill themselves in a series of accidents brought on by their denial of science or nuke the place from orbit.
But Catholic heirarchy are kind of douchebags when it comes to their ties to Fundamentalist wingnuts. Since both groups tend to have similar political interests, the Catholic churches don’t bother to speak up and challenge the creationists on the subject.
You almost never see mainstream Christians calling out the bad behavior of fundamentalists. But they always seem to be around when atheists make generalizations about Christianity based on fundamentalist mayhem to make NALT (Not All Like That) admonishments.
1 Like
You almost never see white people calling out the bad behavior of other white people either. You almost never see people who own Toyotas calling out the bad behavior of other Toyota owners. This is because, as with religions, it’s not their job and it’s a totally strange and unfair expectation.
My liberal hippy Jesusy friends, and many liberal congregations out there do call out the crazies, but you won’t notice it unless you look for it because they rarely have a platform. Also it’s not their job to inform everyone everywhere that they disagree with the crazy fundamentalists. (Colbert has done a pretty nice job of calling out the bad behavior of fundamentalists, FWIW.)
Yes, because that’s as much BS as expecting all Christians to publicly disavow dumb thoughts and deeds of others they have nothing to do with.
No, it’s worse than that. Fox News trumps even her religion. Literally, what people like O’Reilly say on TV is more infallible than anything the Pope has say.
And I cannot ever broach the subject with her again. This is someone I have regular business contact with, no work-around possible.
Sadly not either, he’s just a wee bit ignorant. I’ve tried countering the “god’s will” argument by arguing that if all good comes from god (which is his belief), then lifesaving treatments etc… must also come from god, at least as inspiration etc… No real answer to that one…
1 Like
Heh. I’ve made that comparison. Particularly after one of the two had been basically drummed out of church (not really kicked out, but he’s got a nice “maybe we’re not the right congregation for you” letter…).
Couldn’t be prouder of him.
Seems like progress from disbelief in evolution. A difficult but worthy enterprise.
Did you not point out to her that this is a Protestant heresy and so she is at variance with the teaching of the church? She’s going to Hell!
4 Likes
Worryingly, String Theory has all the attributes of a religion. It’s worth remembering that there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support it over “conventional” physics; in fact there is no experiment planned (that I’ve heard about) that has a chance of making the differentiation. Meanwhile physicists complain that a belief in ST is needed to get jobs and promotion because String Theorists hold all the top jobs in theoretical physics.
I have a feeling that there will be a big new discovery and that ST will turn out to have been another Ptolemaic astronomy, or phlogiston. But currently so many people would be made to look stupid if that happened, that the resistance is going to be enormous.
When we see people defending the indefensible, like Creationists, we have to remember that the history of science as well as anti-science is littered with people spending time on things that may lead nowhere.
4 Likes
The number of choosable parameters to tweak in that thing is itself suggesting that it won’t work.
Now this is bad. Why/how does that happen?
1 Like
Not a real answer, but Kuhn’s paradigm shift is imo a convincing reasoning. The String Theory looks “beautiful” and does explain stuff. Sure, not testable with experiments, but the scientists “inventing” and shaping ST got older and more important.
Because they can hinder or support the success of younger scientists they form a body of people similar to the own ideas (hopefully not intentionally and targeted but unconsciously)
1 Like
Yet what is the typical admonishment for non-crazy moderate to reform Muslims?
That the moderates and sane ones of the faith don’t call out their fundamentalist kill-crazy brothers of the faith.
I would love to see liberal hippy Jesusy types and liberal congregations to make their presence more known to the public. It undercuts the fundamentalist crazies and they are a fairly upstanding, reasonable bunch.
Where are they now when we have presidential candidates all falling over themselves to get the endorsement of some of the most bigoted, anti-democratic and psychotic Christian leaders out there?
But the only time I ever see them is to berate atheists for making generalizations about Christianity.
1 Like
More of the same BS, you can sling it at Christians and also Muslims.
They are not hard to find if you’re looking. It doesn’t sell well, so you aren’t going to see it in the corporate media, though.
Doing whatever their things are, I’m sure if you looked you’d find things, though it’s not like it’s relevant. The Bible-thumpers aren’t going to listen to the Quakers, no matter how many public declarations the Quakers make. The idea that liberals and moderates have an impact on conservatives in religion is something you could only arrive at if the single thing you’re basing your views on is your imagination. Also, do you really want even more religion in the political sector?
FWIW, I’m an atheist, though I try not to mention it since so many are embarrassing to be associated with. Also as a moderate atheist, I’ve noticed that I haven’t ever stopped conservative atheists like you from carrying on.
“They are not hard to find if you’re looking. It doesn’t sell well, so you aren’t going to see it in the corporate media, though”
So when is the next carrier pigeon carrying the news of their exploits?
I’m sure if you looked you’d find things, though it’s not like it’s relevant
Liiiike where? Please, I would love it they were out and about and visible to the general public.
Also, do you really want even more religion in the political sector?
It would be nice if religion wasn’t synonymous with “Taliban like fundamentalist crazy” in this respect. 
My point is that you don’t see the liberal and moderate sects even endorsing liberal and moderate politicians in any overtly public fashion.
I gladly admit that point is rather weak on my part. I will grant you that such groups probably find such things distasteful. They tend to have a strong love of secular government/separation of church and state. So such endorsements probably look crass and hypocritical.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
