10 7

Hey everyone, it's been a while - hope all you vets are doing well; I see there's a shit-load more members since I last logged in - hope you're liking the community here.

So - now that life has settled down a bit, thought I'd share a blog post of mine that is a response to hearing about an astrophysicist who converted to Christianity. (Yes, you read that right). It's a bit of a read (1,918 words). Any feedback always appreciated.


Hominid 7 Dec 6

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I am having strong problems with 1, 2 and 4. 1 & 2 are totally false and a supposed scientist must have real emotional issues to even think about those items. Given the direction the Christianity is headed today only a deeply troubled person would think it is the source of morals.


"Items 3 to 5: Personal and Emotional
These next points clearly indicate the absence of scientific critical thinking; they are founded purely on the emotional need to feel coddled and safe.

Ms. Salviander’s Testimony
In her own words, Ms. Salviader’s eventual conversion is hallmarked by feelings and emotions, often precipitated by loss and pain

I remember reading about her a couple of years ago and went searching for more information as I suspected that she had experienced trauma. As it turned out, she had a couple of traumas back-to-back. This left her vulnerable to evangelical vultures.

Welcome back. You were missed.

Thanks Vikki (can I call you that? 😉 ) Life's circumstances bumped me down Maslow's hierarchy a level or two, hence the hiatus, but that astrophysicist article raised my ire... I must have my juice back or something...

@Hominid Can I call you Jimbob? ? ?

Sorry to hear about that. Glad the juices are flowing again.

@VictoriaNotes - Yep, and with a few less filters.

Jimbob... really? sheesh... Well, perhaps this recent pic isn't so far off...



I saw the article online too, but didn't want to spend too much time thinking about it, just shook my head a bit and kept scrolling. I didn't have the patience to address it as fully as you did, but it was an interesting rebuttal, and I agree with you.

It seems that even the most logical and truth seeking individuals can make some room in their minds for something they can rely on for comfort during difficult times.

The various ways she went about justifying her (return to?) belief shows (to me anyway) that she realizes this is not a natural or science based religion she's turning to, but something she needs to explain to her own brain as plausible, in order to believe it even just in her heart, so to speak.

I'm always happy to give lots of space to folks who need to rely on a faith of some kind to get them through difficulties, but I object when people want to bring others on board their religion train too. Perhaps she wants company in her faith by coaxing fellow scientists to believe as she does?

Personally, I am happier dealing with loss, change, social problems, with realism and an understanding of natural consequences. I don't see what Jesus (whether he was a real person or not) has to do with the spinning orbs in the cosmos.

I tend to think whether there was an actual Jesus who was mythologized or it's all a myth, a combination of prior mythological deities, there was a purpose for the story in the time and place it was composed, but it has little to do with our modern world especially what we know now that they didn't know then.


Didn't read the article.

but reading your post triggered something in my head. I think for all my life, the walls where I have lived have been textured. even as a kid, I would see "shapes" and "pictures" in the seemingly random grainy patterns created by the sprayed and painted over texture. many years later, I read where the human mind seeks out familiar patterns... just as apparently mine had been doing all along. my point? people will make things fit somehow; it's what we do.


For an astrophysicist to say "Genesis is consistent with science" is to speak outside her area of expertise and to be relatively ignorant of the implications of the actual claims in the Genesis account. And that's just one of her points.

The bottom line is that if someone is willing to (or desperately needs to) embrace assertions without evidence, they will do it despite their day job requiring that they avoid that sort of credulity.


As I've often said, being rational about one thing (astrophysics) doesn't mean you are rational about others (creationism). It's ashame about points 1 and 2; points 3 through 5 are plenty good to embrace religion... you don't need to then have to bring science into it. 😀


? W/B


I couldn't read past the list of five reasons because they just seem too flimsy on the face of it, but Mr. Hutchison's words I can endorse enthusiastically...

"There’s nothing more sacred than the truth."

Amen to that!

skado Level 8 Dec 6, 2018

I did a fairly extensive response more for the benefit of my Facebook followers who don't fully understand non-theism, and why theism is logically fallacious.

Nice to see you again BTW.


Hi Hominid welcome back. Many changes. I have 5 groups now lol.


Hello and welcome back

Her five reasons just don't add up

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:238353
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.