"Proof" for creationism

[Tap_Legion]

I really thought the scene from the Sopranos a few years back was too funny.

Creationist (to Tony Soprano): "The Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans co-existed with the Dinosaurs..."


Tony Soprano: "What, like the Flintsones? "



Silly silly religious types.

 

[Onhell]

The name is the worst part. By calling yourself "brights", the suggestion might rise that others are the "numbskulls" or something in that vein. I wrote that before checking wikipedia, but indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights#Cr ... _the_title -->

Criticism of the title
The movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious. ... etc

I was thinking that too, you beat me too it

 

[Genghis Khan]

The name is the worst part. By calling yourself "brights", the suggestion might rise that others are the "numbskulls" or something in that vein. I wrote that before checking wikipedia, but indeed:

I agree that the name could have been different.  Still, I think there is a need for a universal name for all non-supernatural thinkers.  I have not yet had time to do more than scan the site, but I will.

Perhaps in the U.S.A. there's a need for something like this, and I can imagine that when people like Phelps and others are dominant factors in society, and when there's no other way to fight racism, inequality etc. The lack of political parties might also encourage sects/errr movements like these.

Definitely.  I'd rather it be a social movement than a political one.  I don't like forcing values on people even if they are the better ones, like Sweden is doing, where stating that religion is truth is now illegal. 

 

[Hozz]

I'm deliberately taking the opposing side here, but if the creationists are allowed to scorn upon the the followers of science, why shouldn't the opposite be true? I see no christian movements lambasting the creationists for not backing up their claims, buts still, the "true" scientific community lays hate to the ones trying to promote their agenda over as simple a thing as a name. From the point of view of a scientist, creationism is unintelligent, so why shouldn't it be allowed to be called as such?

Still, this is not my opinion, just trying to stir the conversation a bit

 

[Forostar]

Definitely.  I'd rather it be a social movement than a political one.  I don't like forcing values on people even if they are the better ones, like Sweden is doing, where stating that religion is truth is now illegal. 

Do you have more info on Sweden. I'm very curious about the consequences. E.g: what is allowed to say in church?

@Hozz: Always good to stir things up indeed.
To constantly call people unintelligent won't serve a purpose.

Apart from the religion thing:

People who like to be or like to feel supreme can be dangerous. These people often like to tell others that they're not intelligent. Those who judge people on their intelligence only, will never be able to be a social human, and will probably turn out to be a bitter, cynical and in worst cases sadistic person.

Even if unintelligent people are unintelligent, then so what?

You can't change someone's intelligence.
Someone has not chosen for his own intelligence.
Intelligent people have the same rights as unintelligent people (something often forgotten on this forum, by the way)


To constantly divide people into classes like unintelligent and intelligent is a facistic way of thinking, and I strongly  oppose that.

 

[LooseCannon]

The idea of The Brights is to spread the idea of the movement in your own way.  Modern day politics has seen an aggressive influx of religion and I suppose there is definitely a want to be seen as the antithesis of that.  I am what I have chosen to be...I won't stand up and tell someone their religion is wrong, but I will certainly stand up and tell them someone is wrong to bring their religion to my school.  But I won't do that because I identify as a deist or as a Bright - I do it because it is who I am.

There's not supposed to be a "conversion" or a "political goal".  It's simply attempting to create a memé in the same way the terms "gay" and "queer" began to be used in the 70s to represent and unite homosexual, bisexual, transgendered people of all sexes and genders.  Attempting to create the idea that an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, and other similar belief sets are not opposed nor are they different in any substantial way, and that (especially in the USA) there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to that set of beliefs, and there are many more out there who share a similar, if not identical, set of core beliefs.  I think it's a very, very important movement.

 

[Forostar]

Apparently it is a big deal to not be religious in Northern America. Not where I live.
Words like atheist and agnostic are hardly used.

If some Brights would tell us what they stand for, they would be told that what they stand for started already 40 years ago.

I'm not kidding, in the sixties this truly already started in the Netherlands. You might find the following an interesting development, and it might serve as an example (or prediction!) of the Bright's wishes.

I'm talking about the the breakdown of pillarisation.

Pillarisation (Verzuiling in Dutch, Pilarisation in French) is a term used to describe the denominational segregation of Dutch and Belgian society. These societies were (and in some areas, still are) "vertically" divided in several smaller segments or "pillars" (zuilen, singular: zuil) according to different religions or ideologies.

These pillars all had their own social institutions: their own newspapers, broadcasting organisations, political parties, trade unions, schools, hospitals, building societies, universities, scouting organisations and sports clubs. Some companies even only hired personnel of a specific religion or ideology. This led to a situation where many people had no personal contact with people from another pillar.

In the Netherlands there were (at least) three pillars: Protestant, Catholic and Social-democratic. Almost all Catholics were part of the Catholic pillar. Orthodox and conservative Protestants joined the Protestant pillar, while more latitudinarian Protestants and atheists either joined the Socialist pillar or were pillarless. The Protestant party Christian Historical Union did not organise a pillar of its own but linked itself to the Protestant pillar shaped by the Anti Revolutionary Party. Pillarisation was originally initiated by the Anti Revolutionary Party, who based it on their philosophy of sphere sovereignty. People in the Socialist pillar were mainly working class. People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle and upper class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists set up their own pillar: the general pillar. Ties between general organisations were much less strong. The political parties usually associated with this pillar were the liberal Free-minded Democratic League (VD and Liberal State Party (LSP), although these parties opposed pillarisation. Communists and ultra-orthodox Protestants also set up similar organisations, these however were much smaller.

The following table shows the most important institutions per pillar:
(see -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation )

After the second world war liberals and socialists, but also Protestants and Catholics began to doubt the pillarised system. They founded a unity movement, the People's Movement Nederlandse Volksbeweging. Progressives of all pillars (including the Catholic resistance movement Christofoor) were united in this. They wanted a breakthrough (doorbraak) of the political system. But pillarisation was ingrained in Dutch society, and could not be defeated that easily. Even the People's Movement suffered from this, it was associated with the socialistic party, SDAP, and its ideology was socialism combined with democratic principles. Only the left liberal VDB and the minor Protestant CDU joined the SDAP to form a new political party: the Labour Party, Partij van de Arbeid in 1946.

During the 1960s these pillars, particularly under political criticism from D66 and the group Nieuw Links (New Left) in PvdA, largely broke down. For example, VPRO moved towards the general pillar in years. Television was also pillarised, but in its early years (the 1950s) it had only one station, which meant that everyone watched the same broadcasts. Young people did not want to be associated with these organisations. Because of this and increased mobility many people saw that people from the other pillar weren't that different. Increased wealth and education made people independent of many of these institutions. From 1973, ARP and CHU of the Protestant pillar united with Catholic KVP in CDA, they first entered in elections in 1977. From 1976, the Catholic trade union NKV cooperated with NVV of the Socialist pillar to merge into the FNV in 1982.

By the 21st century, pillarisation has disappeared but many remnants can be seen: public television for instance is divided over several pillarised organisations, instead of being one organisation, as is the education system split between public and religious schools. Nevertheless, there are small pillars that still exist today. Usually, members of the Reformed Churches (liberated) have their own schools, a university, their own national newspaper, and several organizations such as a Labor Union, psychiatric hospitals, et cetera. "Parallel society" founded by Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands is also sometimes conceived as a contemporary vestige of pillarisation.

 

[LooseCannon]

Apparently it is a big deal to not be religious in Northern America. Not where I live.
Words like atheist and agnostic are hardly used.

If some Brights would tell us what they stand for, they would be told that what they stand for started already 40 years ago.

I'm not kidding, in the sixties this truly already started in the Netherlands. You might find the following an interesting development, and it might serve as an example (or prediction!) of the Bright's wishes.

Your religion is a huge deal in many areas of North America, especially in the more conservative areas of the United States and Canada (the South, the Midwest, Alberta).  In the more left-wing areas, it is less so.

The end of pillarization in the Netherlands is not really comparable to the situation currently existing in (specifically) the United States, Forostar.  The United States has, in general, resisted the notions of a non-secular state.  There has never been a Catholic or Protestant party, or television.  Private schools for religious people is an option, but of course, they are privately funded and in the case of many post-secondary private religious institutions, are not fully accredited.

In other words, religion has never been institutionally ingrained into US politics.

However, it is ingrained into the US public, and that is a far more difficult nut to crack.  The stated purpose of the Brights' Movement is as follows:

• Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
• Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
• Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.

None of those goals are targeted at government, but at people, average joes, who think that those who aren't religious are somehow lesser in their opinion or incapable of being moral people or leaders.

 

[Forostar]

However, it is ingrained into the US public, and that is a far more difficult nut to crack.

Institutions consist of people. Obviously most people's thoughts changed in the sixties.

Result: that same nut was cracked 40 years ago in the Netherlands. It helped to break down the pillarisation, which in turn helped people being more independent in chosing what to do. It became more and more normal to not belong to a group, to not be religious. So the tolerance towards non-religious people increased.

There were way more churchgoers in the 50's than afterwards, and that figure decreased, decreased, decreased...

 

[Genghis Khan]

Do you have more info on Sweden. I'm very curious about the consequences. E.g: what is allowed to say in church?

@Hozz: Always good to stir things up indeed.
To constantly call people unintelligent won't serve a purpose.

Apart from the religion thing:

People who like to be or like to feel supreme can be dangerous. These people often like to tell others that they're not intelligent. Those who judge people on their intelligence only, will never be able to be a social human, and will probably turn out to be a bitter, cynical and in worst cases sadistic person.

Even if unintelligent people are unintelligent, then so what?

You can't change someone's intelligence.
Someone has not chosen for his own intelligence.
Intelligent people have the same rights as unintelligent people (something often forgotten on this forum, by the way)


To constantly divide people into classes like unintelligent and intelligent is a facistic way of thinking, and I strongly  oppose that.

Well spoken Forostar.  That's why I don't agree with the label, just the idea that there should be a common name for all who see the world as naturalistic rather than supernatural.  I especially agree with the part of "bitter and cynical".  Many who use intelligence as the primary way to judge people in every context are in essence trying to chance people's intelligence which is a futile task.

As far as the Swedish story goes, I believe it was either Yax or Anomica who posted this bit of news here a few months ago.  I was only quoting one or both.

---

None of those goals are targeted at government, but at people, average joes, who think that those who aren't religious are somehow lesser in their opinion or incapable of being moral people or leaders.

It always bothers me when I state that I don't believe in god, the other person asks me if I have any morality or some such similar thing.  Arrogance and ignorance.