Refuting a random Xian Fundie's bad take on science.
In a series of claims meant to reveal the obvious legitimacy of fundamentalist Christianity,
some random fundie on the interwebz proposed a few hard-hitting proofs.
Those claims are highlighted in italics.
My responses are given after each claim.
---
Fundie said this:
"firstly, I have personally met many scientists who became Christians and young earth believers while getting their masters/PhDs in their respective fields. The scientific evidence pushed them into Christianity."
--
My reply:
I'm unwilling to place faith in you (some random dude on the internet) about your personal experiences.
I'm not placing faith in the 'personal testimonies' of those alleged-people either.
And I think you realize that it's entirely reasonable for me to withhold such wasteful charity.
It was unreasonable for you to even attempt to get me to place such faith in any humans;
including humans I can't verify even exist.
Nor is it likely that you just stumbled into conversations with so many scientists with the same story to tell about how they became Christians.
I think it's more likely that you heard such stories being circulated among YEC-Christians.
Perhaps it might seem more credible if you claimed it was you who just happened to run across so many scientists with the same story to tell.
I could imagine that you were standing outside of your local Scientists-Mart taking a survey.
But why should I?
I don't know you.
I don't know them.
I wasn't there.
I don't believe you.
I wouldn't grant anyone such blind faith;
- not even if I did run into:
some such people,
with some such credentials,
claiming some such things.
Muslims pull that same stunt all the time.
They have many stories about all the atheists and Christians (including scientists) who validated Islam by converting to Islam.
I'm unimpressed by the hypocrisy of invoking arguments that you yourself give zero weight to when other religions try to use those same arguments.
I'm unimpressed by rumor/hearsay, appeals to authority, and bandwagon fallacies.
However,
I do actually understand why those carry weight with you.
It's exactly the reasoning that Christians rely on to even be Christians.
They
* place faith in mere humans,
* who placed their faith in other mere humans,
(etc etc)
* going all the way back to some random anonymous humans ...
* who claimed to hear the voice of "God" (in their heads).
--
Such rumors should carry no weight with anyone.
As for those who claimed to hear such a voice,
it's far more likely that they were either lying
or mentally ill.
Consider this your crash course in sober reasoning.
You should be embarrassed
for regarding human rumors as good evidence for what any odorless, intangible, not-footprint-leaving, non-leaf-rustling, invisible, hide-and-seek playing, magical Super-People think.
If someone alive today claimed such a personal revelation, you'd scoff at them.
But when some random people (whom you know nothing about)
are merely rumored to have heard such a voice in a superstitious and primitive land,
you think "Wow. That must be true" and then rush out to tell everyone else the good news.
And now,
operating from that fantastic religious bias,
you want to tell everyone about an impossible global conspiracy being perpetrated mostly by Theists ...
to hide some essential truths about God.
Worse yet, you try to frame that conspiracy theory as "atheists" conspiring to hide evidence of an already hidden "God".
These are blatant contradictions; to:
a.) justify the intentional hiddenness of your deity
but then
b.) claim that same deity is NOT-AT-ALL hiding.
and then
c.) accuse billions of God-fans of trying to hide him behind the artificial smoke of Evolution (and other "fake news"-science).
and yet
d.) claim it's impossible to thwart the efforts of your God (including his desire to be correctly seen and recognized by all)
and yet
e.) be mad at evolutionists, old-earth-ists, etc
for succeeding at thwarting your deity's desire to be correctly seen and recognized by all.
and then
f.) speak as if all the people
who are successfully hiding your GOD from humanity
are all "atheists".
Man, you just gotta understand why that's so hard for outsiders to take seriously.
But we can just move on from there.
By stating that the scientific evidence pushed them into Christianity, you are letting me know:
They were pressured by the facts.
But does your theological stance on "free will" actually allow for that claim?
In one breath, we are told the reason your deity doesn't give humanity stronger and more direct proof of his existence
is because:
He doesn't want us compelled by facts
to believe he exists.
Why not?
Because he feels like that would be a violation of our free will.
This is why he wants faith-based pursuits and conclusions instead. Because "then it's a choice".
In the very next breath,
we are told by you (and other Christians)
that the reason people become Christians
(including those students you just told me about)
is because:
GOD actually DID/DOES provide that level of evidence. Because he DOES want us compelled by facts.
So for their conversion into "the truth",
instead of "faith"
they had knowledge.
And yet, after making all of those important and contradictory distinctions, ...
you guys circle right back to defining faith AS knowledge; nullifying everything you just got done saying.
1. Say a thing.
2. Say the opposite thing.
3. Unsay all of it.
4. Start the loop over again.
Meanwhile,
you apparently think I should count that story as good evidence that some anti-evolution version of Christianity is true.
How is that even remotely reasonable?
Those
* allegedly-existing
* mere students,
* with unspecified prior exposure to Christianity,
* and unspecified then-current exposure to Christianity,
* under unspecified emotional stressors in their personal lives,
* with unspecified pre-existing biases that could have primed them with a Christianity-favoring lens or a conspiracy-theorists mentality,
* during unspecified academic years,
* in unspecified semesters,
* in unspecified scientific fields,
*getting unspecified grades,
* in unspecified schools,
and
*who (if they existed) most likely lied about what they really think, in order to get passing grades on tests where the correct answers conflict with Christian fundamentalism.
Those theoretically-existing students would surely have misrepresented themselves later (again) to teachers and administrators.
How so?
By hiding their intentions to push religious pseudoscience with the secular credentials they were still trying to get after they secretly converted to YEC-Christianity.
At the very least, the doctoral candidates lied. Because otherwise they'd never be accepted as doctoral candidates in fields that conflict with the beliefs of YEC-Christian fundamentalism.
Can I believe newly converted Christian-Fundamentalists would so grossly mispresent themselves in order to gain credentials they planned to abuse?
Sure. Yea. Of course they would.
But the whole entire rest of that claim is impressively unlikely.
I almost can't believe you even attempted to pass any of that off
as obviously factual
or even remotely reasonable.
Seriously.
While they were sitting in those classrooms, ...
How did all those not-yet-religious people
already know enough about YEC-Genesis-Creationism?
How did they already know enough about Genesis ... to each be properly equipped
to decide YEC-Genesis-Creationism matches the scientific data?
In fact,
where does Genesis say anything at all that people also learn in a biology class?
And how were those students all able to quickly rule out all other religion's creation mythologies, along with literally all possible/imaginable creation theories?
Surely you realize how unreasonable it would be to think
"If Evolution isn't true, then that means ...
the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
And if the Earth is only about 6000 years old,
that must mean a talking snake talked an XX-Chromosome person (who was cloned directly from an XY-Chromosome person; which directly defies what we know about genetics) into eating a cursed piece of fruit.
And that curse explains why people are sometimes mean to me".
Can you see how fallacious and noncredible those claims are?
Meanwhile,
nothing in any biology textbook or biology paper says anything at all about
* some Jewish carpenter
* in the iron age
* offering himself as a human sacrifice
* to appease a wrathful tribal deity (who was violently upset at US about how he made us).
Nobody opens their textbook to the part where gene sequences determine biological development and thinks "So you mean we all inherited a magic curse?
THAT's why humans and other creatures have genetic flaws and eventually die?".
Biology, as a scientific field, doesn't endorse any of it.
So what's with the games?
Why present an outsider with unreasonable claims, arguments and expectations?
Why try to pass those off as reasonable?
Your claims are based on a foundation of religious assumptions and logical fallacies.
But I'm not in your religion.
So I'm not working from a place where I'm building upon those assumptions and fallacies.
So you'll need to give me something I can work from, to get me from:
here
to
there.
Appealing to you as an authority
based on other humans as authorities
isn't helpful.
Scientific evidence does not push (anyone) into Christianity.
Randomly few people misunderstand the science.
And why?
Because their lens has been skewed
by the culturally and personally pervasive influence of your cult.
That's what "pushes" vulnerable people into fundamentalist religions.
I won't pretend I don't understand how it works, to appease some who is speaking from inside of such a trap.
It's blatantly hypocritical.
--
If X, Y, or Z reasoning does not validate rival religions, then it does not validate yours either.
---
Moving on to your Claim #2:
"Secondly, yes, there is a growing group of scientists who don’t even believe in God who are abandoning billions of years as it has never made any sense."
--
My replies:
First:
Next,
How many is in that group?
Next,
What rate is that group growing at?
Next,
how does that growth rate compare to the growth rate of qualified voices who are embracing the idea that our Earth is billions of years old?
You either think the number of people and the growth rate of that demographic matters ... or you don't.
If you don't, then why mention it?
If you do think it matters, then (by your own logic) shouldn't the bigger group and the faster growth-rate impress us even more?
Or are you again appealing to the Special Pleading
of a double-standard?
Also,
why should I care what "makes sense" to you?
Why should I care what "makes sense" to others?
Your inability to understand something
isn't actually useful as evidence.
It IS good reason to question something.
I'll grant that easily.
But that should be used as the beginning of an inquiry; not as a thought-stopping exercise.
Your religion is an absolute mess of emotional irrationalities.
But I'd never offer that statement by itself as evidence that it's invalid.
Instead, I'd detail some of the problems I'm having with it. And then I'd invite a believer to walk me through their reasoning. Their reasoning will either hold up under fair and logical scrutiny ... or it won't.
"It doesn't make sense" is a claim.
It's not evidence.
It's not even an argument.
----------
Your 3rd claim:
"Thirdly, only 10% of Nobel prize winners are atheists. 85% are either Christian or Jewish (65/20 split)."
--
That claim is based on bad data.
Many of the people identified as "theists" were absolutely not theists.
This is EXACTLY what the meme was about
that started this exchange.
For anyone who missed it, that meme was this:
[A link to the thread]
Next, that claim is based on going back to 1901.
Seriously.
1901.
Compared to today, people barely knew anything about any field of science.
Back then, even archeology was still making the mistake (that it no longer makes) to think the physical evidence supports Biblical narratives.
Back then, I would have spent my entire adult life as a Christian too;
if I were born into a Christianity-dominated culture.
Good information was tragically sparse back then.
Great reasoning was just as rare.
Even the real number of people on that list who did identify as theists were stewed in a pot of cultural theism.
They were cooked under pressure to conform to that cultural narrative.
Many also surrendered to pressures being put upon them to pretend to believe.
This point is made perfectly in DarkMatter2525's video called "The Theft Of Our Values".
When people climb up on any society's ladder of culturally respected ambitions,
they are going to be keenly aware of their society's in-group/out-group biases.
Additionally, they will often find themselves under pressure from family and friends.
Just as importantly, they will find themselves under pressure from politically and monetarily powerful backers, to "score for the home team".
So they wear the team jersey.
They fly the banner of their sponsors and other supporters.
They also capitulate to informal mobs of fellow citizens;
citizens who won't tolerate the "evil" of other religions,
nor of the non-religious,
nor any other suspicious people who are "not one of us".
Anyone smart enough to climb high on their society's ladder of success
knows who butters their muffin.
They are also made aware
of who would take it away.
Even today, many church members and leaders only pretend to believe.
For some, their job depends on it.
In fact, that is a HUGE problem in Biblical scholarship.
So many scholars are contractually obligated (in writing) to only ever publish work that supports their religious employer's statement of faith.
Why is "the true religion" willfully placing their educators under such unethical pressures?
That's easy.
It's because they aren't true.
The whole damn thing is a scam.
Although, my main point about this is still:
It means we can't usually know really who was (or is) really a believer.
Christian churches, schools, and families go out of their way to create pressure to ensure people will dishonestly endorse Christianity;
as a FAIL SAFE for anyone who stops (or never even started) actually believing in it.
For many people,
"coming out" as a nonbeliever would have dire personal consequences;
like being seen (by family and friends) as spiritually sick and possibly contagious.
It's both comically ridiculous
and yet abusively seriously
to portray non-believers (and differently-believers) in the ways fundamentalists do.
Also consider:
No one has to be smart to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1979, "Mother" Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty.
Did she actually earn that?
Nope.
In fact, she did exactly the opposite of what the prize was for.
But it's like awards in the music industry.
Those awards are sponsored by backers who have something to gain.
In this case, it was political theater.
It was sponsored by her powerful, religion-themed mafia (The Roman Catholic Church).
---
Moving on to your Claim #2:
"Secondly, yes, there is a growing group of scientists who don’t even believe in God who are abandoning billions of years as it has never made any sense."
--
My replies:
First:
Next,
How many is in that group?
Next,
What rate is that group growing at?
Next,
how does that growth rate compare to the growth rate of qualified voices who are embracing the idea that our Earth is billions of years old?
You either think the number of people and the growth rate of that demographic matters ... or you don't.
If you don't, then why mention it?
If you do think it matters, then (by your own logic) shouldn't the bigger group and the faster growth-rate impress us even more?
Or are you again appealing to the Special Pleading
of a double-standard?
Also,
why should I care what "makes sense" to you?
Why should I care what "makes sense" to others?
Your inability to understand something
isn't actually useful as evidence.
It IS good reason to question something.
I'll grant that easily.
But that should be used as the beginning of an inquiry; not as a thought-stopping exercise.
Your religion is an absolute mess of emotional irrationalities.
But I'd never offer that statement by itself as evidence that it's invalid.
Instead, I'd detail some of the problems I'm having with it. And then I'd invite a believer to walk me through their reasoning. Their reasoning will either hold up under fair and logical scrutiny ... or it won't.
"It doesn't make sense" is a claim.
It's not evidence.
It's not even an argument.
----------
Your 3rd claim:
"Thirdly, only 10% of Nobel prize winners are atheists. 85% are either Christian or Jewish (65/20 split)."
--
That claim is based on bad data.
Many of the people identified as "theists" were absolutely not theists.
Stephen Weinberg was listed as Jewish.
But he was an atheist.
Richard Feynman gets the same treatment.
Same with Einstein.
He outright rejected the idea of a literal and "personal God" as laughable and childish.
Some others were also counted as Jewish Nobels but were actually atheist/agnostic.
It lists 38 Jewish Nobel prizes for Physics.
Stephen Weinberg was counted twice with two different spellings of his name (Stephen/Steven). So it's really 37, and at least 17 of them are demonstrably atheist/agnostic.
The book that statistic was taken from
is total rubbish; and yet it is cited widely.
This is EXACTLY what the meme was about
that started this exchange.
For anyone who missed it, that meme was this:
[A link to the thread]
Next, that claim is based on going back to 1901.
Seriously.
1901.
Compared to today, people barely knew anything about any field of science.
Back then, even archeology was still making the mistake (that it no longer makes) to think the physical evidence supports Biblical narratives.
Back then, I would have spent my entire adult life as a Christian too;
if I were born into a Christianity-dominated culture.
Good information was tragically sparse back then.
Great reasoning was just as rare.
Even the real number of people on that list who did identify as theists were stewed in a pot of cultural theism.
They were cooked under pressure to conform to that cultural narrative.
Many also surrendered to pressures being put upon them to pretend to believe.
This point is made perfectly in DarkMatter2525's video called "The Theft Of Our Values".
When people climb up on any society's ladder of culturally respected ambitions,
they are going to be keenly aware of their society's in-group/out-group biases.
Additionally, they will often find themselves under pressure from family and friends.
Just as importantly, they will find themselves under pressure from politically and monetarily powerful backers, to "score for the home team".
So they wear the team jersey.
They fly the banner of their sponsors and other supporters.
They also capitulate to informal mobs of fellow citizens;
citizens who won't tolerate the "evil" of other religions,
nor of the non-religious,
nor any other suspicious people who are "not one of us".
Anyone smart enough to climb high on their society's ladder of success
knows who butters their muffin.
They are also made aware
of who would take it away.
Even today, many church members and leaders only pretend to believe.
For some, their job depends on it.
In fact, that is a HUGE problem in Biblical scholarship.
So many scholars are contractually obligated (in writing) to only ever publish work that supports their religious employer's statement of faith.
Why is "the true religion" willfully placing their educators under such unethical pressures?
That's easy.
It's because they aren't true.
The whole damn thing is a scam.
Although, my main point about this is still:
It means we can't usually know really who was (or is) really a believer.
Christian churches, schools, and families go out of their way to create pressure to ensure people will dishonestly endorse Christianity;
as a FAIL SAFE for anyone who stops (or never even started) actually believing in it.
For many people,
"coming out" as a nonbeliever would have dire personal consequences;
like being seen (by family and friends) as spiritually sick and possibly contagious.
and yet abusively seriously
to portray non-believers (and differently-believers) in the ways fundamentalists do.
Also consider:
No one has to be smart to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1979, "Mother" Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty.
Did she actually earn that?
Nope.
In fact, she did exactly the opposite of what the prize was for.
But it's like awards in the music industry.
Those awards are sponsored by backers who have something to gain.
In this case, it was political theater.
It was sponsored by her powerful, religion-themed mafia (The Roman Catholic Church).
But let's not ignore the logical fallacy inherent to you even making the argument.
You evidently think there is a significant, positive causative correlation
between
* being smart
vs
* winning a Nobel prize.
From there, you evidently think that such prestigious awards reveal that the more mentally impressive a person is ... the more likely they are to realize that there is a "God".
But that reasoning is entirely fallacious.
Beside the FACT that there is actually a
*statistically signficant
* negative correlation
* between Christian-religious fundamentalism vs I.Q. (<--- link)
...
Even in a theoretical universe where Christians maintain a statistically signficant, higher 'average' IQ (compared to all other faith-relevant demographics) ...
That would actually undermine that religion's claims.
It's ironic, I know. But I'm correct about this.
Think about it.
Any (negative or positive)
statistically signficant 'average' of IQ among Christians
would automatically mean that "IF" their "God" is real, THEN he 'stacked the deck' of the GAME ...
so that people with notably different IQs have much different odds of figuring out the "real answers" about God.
By definition, that would be unjust.
That means many Christians (including you) are accusing their own "God" of being unjust.
--
Don't (or do) get mad at me for noticing.
--------------------------------------------
Lastly, you said
"You might want to take a trip down to Kentucky to educate yourself."
--
Please tell me you meant Ken Ham's Ark.
Because that would be hilarious!
---
---
Bonus material:
In private message, the same fundie offered this, as a 4th challenge:
"And biology, as a scientific field, is one of the best fields by which to argue against evolution and billions of years. But alas, that is not one of the four points you agreed to challenge"
---
My reply:
First, ..,
The very fact that you think biology has so much to say about cosmology and geology (billions of years)
tells me everything I need to know about your level of scientific literacy.
Beyond that,
I appreciate the offer to get lost in the weeds.
It could be fun us two not-biologists play the debate version of Dueling Banjos ... by each playing rival recordings of other people who know how to play the necessary instrument.
But how could that be fruitful?
Neither of us
are qualified to competently 'peer review' papers or books from either side.
You can't personally verify who is correct by diving deep into those materials.
I can't either.
In fact, even people with the necessary credentials are unable to convince their rivals in that contest.
NASA scientists run into that same problem
when it comes to "proving" the Earth is not flat.
Flat Earthers won't trust the necessary information.
So even though I think there IS a way to demonstrate who is correct,
the real problem remains.
You are literally not allowed to discover that you're wrong.
I'm allowed to.
You're not.
It's that simple.
It's even worse than trying to "prove" the earth is not flat ... to a Flat Earther.
At least the Flat Earther isn't under so many coercive pressures to "believe" the Earth is flat.
Whereas Christians absolutely are under coercive pressure to keep believing in their religious culture's fantasy narrative.
Meanwhile, we laymen can either:
a.) defer to the currently overwhelming consensus
or
b.) reject it.
I'm the same way about my perception that the earth is roughly ball-shaped.
Pictures don't really prove that to me. Those can be faked.
I just understand how impossible it would be to keep so many flight-crews and passengers "pretending" that they've really flown around the Earth.
The same holds true for how many people are involved in the Satellite industry, and all the people who study global weather patterns, etc..
I could be tricked about the science that proves a more-or-less spherical Earth.
I'm vulnerable to misinformation, as a layman.
But I cannot be tricked when it comes to the obviously impossible logistics of keeping billions of people on the Earth complicit in such a hoax.
So let's be clear about this.
I don't back the winning side on the basis of "I like it".
I'm also not rebelling against any invisible Super-People.
In fact, I think it would be NEAT if some powerful,
fatherly Sky Wizard
did Big Magic.
It would be even better yet if we could logically verify it.
I sometimes find it rather lackluster to live in a muggleverse.
Generally speaking, the idea of "gods" is pretty fun.
Anyone who accuses atheists of not wanting those types of entities to exist ...
has never been to Comicon.
With that in mind, I rather enjoy the idea of crediting divine magic as the true foundation of our world.
Admittedly, I wouldn't want a Christian-Fundamentalist concept of "God" to be real.
And most Christians actually agree with me about that.
Why?
Because your view of "God" can't be harmonized with love, logic, or even just basic decency.
Most people also have a natural aversion to psychopathic narcissists and flying monkeys (no offense intended. I'm sure you guys enjoy the work).
Such a being "could" exist.
But that's like saying Loki could exist.
You can't blame a guy for not wanting to dwell on such far-fetched and messed-up what-ifs.
In any case,
people lie.
And bias skews.
But math doesn't play favorites.
It is
mathematically and logistically impossible (<--link)
for
* hundreds of thousands of people,
* all across the globe,
* over a span of many recent decades (ever since humans became capable of doing the necessary investigations),
* in thousands of independent labs,
...
to all be part of a global conspiracy to push a very specific iteration of pseudoscience AS science,
...
and then actually go unexposed for decades;
except to whatever extent they are allegedly exposed via strained argumentation from your little (but loud) religious community.
--
Ever since evolution passed rigorous peer review many decades ago (many of those peers identifying as Christians; even more identifying as "theists"),
...
There have been exactly zero
* emails,
* office memos,
* hidden camera footage,
* nor any other material evidence
where some actual scientist, company, or agency
has said anything to the effect of
a confession that evolution is a hoax.
In fact, without a mature understanding of evolutionary processes,
many modern medical advances would not even be possible. (<-- link).
Lastly, again, your arguments accidentally (but unavoidably) accuse "God" of being unjust.
My point about this is the same as before.
If modern humans have access to special proofs of a "God" existing
which prior humans did not have access to,
that would be grossly unfair.
If people in any particular range of IQs
have greater access to acquiring said knowledge and understanding,
that too would be grossly unfair to everyone else.
It's the same problem posed by the story of "Doubting Thomas"; and every other alleged witness to miracles.
Unless I can physically verify the reality of a Jewish Zombie (Unitarianism)
or
an invisible magical being (with multiple personalities) using a dead body as a meat puppet (Trinitarianism), ...
I invoke the right of Thomas
to withhold belief that such has happened.
It's the same problem posed by the claims of Saul/Paul's transformation into Christian theology.
Have any humans enjoyed access to powerful forms of evidence that some OTHER humans have been kept from?
If so, then they are being given unfair advantages.
By definition, that would be unjust (unfair).
See the problem?
God-Fans keep painting him in the worst possible light.
And then they gaslighting everyone who realizes it;
like when they say "It's good that he drowned kittens and puppies just because he was mad at humans. If YOU had a good heart, you'd realize how great that is.".
--
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
Never send a human to do a god's job.
They'll screw it up, every time;
and then literally damn everyone who notices.
--
You are grossly unqualified for the job you claim to have been given.
We all are.
Any All-powerful Super-Being who leaves the eternal fate of any human in your hands (or any human's hands)
is being criminally negligent.
Thus, you should be asking yourself
if any such "God" is really guilty of any such thing.
With that in mind, any humans who boast of being qualified to deliver such messages to humanity
are being amazingly narcissistic.
The same can be said of anyone who thinks they are equipped with the exclusive, divine-magic, secret decoder spirit-goggles, to be able to correctly interpret what's in their favorite version of "The Bible".
You're not.
Nobody is.
It's a cryptic mess of half-thoughts, fallacies, and contradictions.
It has authored so much confusion.
Billions of people who believe in a "God of Abraham"
obsess over 'getting it right'
but can't agree on what any of it really means.
This short video explains that problem in greater detail:
There surely are some random pieces of those texts that some people are sorting out correctly.
But there's no objective way to get all believers 'on the same page' about it.
There is no reliable method for ensuring correct interpretation.
Worse yet, every time some believer says 'there is' (a reliable method),
they are unfairly damning everyone who used that very same method and got a different interpretation.
It's unfairly damning because:
The only way to explain why other people who use the very same method are 'getting it wrong'
is to assume those people have something very wrong with their moral character.
Same method
but different results
means you have to admit it's either:
a.) the fault of the authors of those texts (which would debunk Bible-God)
or
b.) unavoidable as a consequence of basic human failings (which would also debunk Bible-God)
or else
c.) you have to blame the 'other guy' for BEING something wrong (a less virtuous person than you) as the reason why they got the wrong interpretations.
This is why Christianity cannot get its own house in order.
And that really matters, because they should have gotten their own house in order first;
before bothering anyone else.
They should agree between each other what "the message" even IS;
before trying to deliver it.
But they can't.
And that's not my fault.
Nor is it your fault.
Nor is that the fault of Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, etc..
What kind of King would be so utterly inept at trying to be understood by his faithful subjects?
What kind of King would be so horrible at impressing most humans?
What kind of King would FAIL to provide "the fruits" he promised?
You cannot rightly blame that on humans IF such a "God" exists.
What kind of master would plan to violently punish everyone forever
for misunderstanding essential elements of his campaign,
after HE failed to adequately communicate (time and time again)?
It's a good thing none of it's real; or we'd all be screwed.
Although, we are still quite screwed because of the effects of religion.
This is why secular nations are outshining religion nations.
Secular societies have better healthcare, better health, more educated citizens, greater average happiness, lower rates of disease, lower rates of violence, stronger economies, etc..
Science also reveals this:
The higher up a person ascends into formal education, the fewer personal-God-theists there are.
Likewise, the higher scientists ascend into professional accomplishments, ...
the less likely they are to be religious.
Finely honed insights into science
(along with personal maturity and well-earned self respect) are liberating people out of being controlled sheep.
Education is curing increasingly-many people of their religiosity;
-everyone except for the people who have overpowering emotional attachments to it.
Specifically-relevant education is also an effective inoculation against the communicable disease of authoritarian religiosity.
Mental health and maturity are also essential for protecting people against it.
Think about it.
If every child was given ALL that they need, during their entire maturation into adulthood,
and only exposed to your religion's claims after they finish maturing into high-functioning, mentally strong, emotionally healthy, autonomous adults with well-earned confidence and self-respect, ...
Christians would have ZERO (not any) chance of convincing them that Christianity is good or true.
Even the anonymous writers who created the "Christ" character realized this.
"Get 'em while they're young".
Infiltrate and indoctrinate young minds, before they have any protection against it.
You just aren't supposed to notice that it's a willful and direct attempt to subvert children's' right to self-determination.
It's an act justified as "for their own good".
But it blatantly defies protecting every person's "free will".
It's not that I believe in libertarian "free will".
But this point stands, regardless. Because:
Those religions believe it's a thing.
They say it must be protected.
Yet they seek every opportunity to violate it.
And this is a big issue, for many reasons.
It's a human rights violation.
You evidently think there is a significant, positive causative correlation
between
* being smart
vs
* winning a Nobel prize.
From there, you evidently think that such prestigious awards reveal that the more mentally impressive a person is ... the more likely they are to realize that there is a "God".
But that reasoning is entirely fallacious.
Beside the FACT that there is actually a
*statistically signficant
* negative correlation
* between Christian-religious fundamentalism vs I.Q. (<--- link)
...
Even in a theoretical universe where Christians maintain a statistically signficant, higher 'average' IQ (compared to all other faith-relevant demographics) ...
That would actually undermine that religion's claims.
It's ironic, I know. But I'm correct about this.
Think about it.
Any (negative or positive)
statistically signficant 'average' of IQ among Christians
would automatically mean that "IF" their "God" is real, THEN he 'stacked the deck' of the GAME ...
so that people with notably different IQs have much different odds of figuring out the "real answers" about God.
By definition, that would be unjust.
That means many Christians (including you) are accusing their own "God" of being unjust.
--
Don't (or do) get mad at me for noticing.
--------------------------------------------
Lastly, you said
"You might want to take a trip down to Kentucky to educate yourself."
--
Please tell me you meant Ken Ham's Ark.
Because that would be hilarious!
---
---
Bonus material:
In private message, the same fundie offered this, as a 4th challenge:
"And biology, as a scientific field, is one of the best fields by which to argue against evolution and billions of years. But alas, that is not one of the four points you agreed to challenge"
---
My reply:
First, ..,
The very fact that you think biology has so much to say about cosmology and geology (billions of years)
tells me everything I need to know about your level of scientific literacy.
Beyond that,
I appreciate the offer to get lost in the weeds.
It could be fun us two not-biologists play the debate version of Dueling Banjos ... by each playing rival recordings of other people who know how to play the necessary instrument.
But how could that be fruitful?
Neither of us
are qualified to competently 'peer review' papers or books from either side.
You can't personally verify who is correct by diving deep into those materials.
I can't either.
In fact, even people with the necessary credentials are unable to convince their rivals in that contest.
NASA scientists run into that same problem
when it comes to "proving" the Earth is not flat.
Flat Earthers won't trust the necessary information.
So even though I think there IS a way to demonstrate who is correct,
the real problem remains.
You are literally not allowed to discover that you're wrong.
I'm allowed to.
You're not.
It's that simple.
It's even worse than trying to "prove" the earth is not flat ... to a Flat Earther.
At least the Flat Earther isn't under so many coercive pressures to "believe" the Earth is flat.
Whereas Christians absolutely are under coercive pressure to keep believing in their religious culture's fantasy narrative.
Meanwhile, we laymen can either:
a.) defer to the currently overwhelming consensus
or
b.) reject it.
I'm the same way about my perception that the earth is roughly ball-shaped.
Pictures don't really prove that to me. Those can be faked.
I just understand how impossible it would be to keep so many flight-crews and passengers "pretending" that they've really flown around the Earth.
The same holds true for how many people are involved in the Satellite industry, and all the people who study global weather patterns, etc..
I could be tricked about the science that proves a more-or-less spherical Earth.
I'm vulnerable to misinformation, as a layman.
But I cannot be tricked when it comes to the obviously impossible logistics of keeping billions of people on the Earth complicit in such a hoax.
So let's be clear about this.
I don't back the winning side on the basis of "I like it".
I'm also not rebelling against any invisible Super-People.
In fact, I think it would be NEAT if some powerful,
fatherly Sky Wizard
did Big Magic.
It would be even better yet if we could logically verify it.
I sometimes find it rather lackluster to live in a muggleverse.
Generally speaking, the idea of "gods" is pretty fun.
Anyone who accuses atheists of not wanting those types of entities to exist ...
has never been to Comicon.
With that in mind, I rather enjoy the idea of crediting divine magic as the true foundation of our world.
Admittedly, I wouldn't want a Christian-Fundamentalist concept of "God" to be real.
And most Christians actually agree with me about that.
Why?
Because your view of "God" can't be harmonized with love, logic, or even just basic decency.
Most people also have a natural aversion to psychopathic narcissists and flying monkeys (no offense intended. I'm sure you guys enjoy the work).
Such a being "could" exist.
But that's like saying Loki could exist.
You can't blame a guy for not wanting to dwell on such far-fetched and messed-up what-ifs.
In any case,
people lie.
And bias skews.
But math doesn't play favorites.
It is
mathematically and logistically impossible (<--link)
for
* hundreds of thousands of people,
* all across the globe,
* over a span of many recent decades (ever since humans became capable of doing the necessary investigations),
* in thousands of independent labs,
...
to all be part of a global conspiracy to push a very specific iteration of pseudoscience AS science,
...
and then actually go unexposed for decades;
except to whatever extent they are allegedly exposed via strained argumentation from your little (but loud) religious community.
--
Ever since evolution passed rigorous peer review many decades ago (many of those peers identifying as Christians; even more identifying as "theists"),
...
There have been exactly zero
* emails,
* office memos,
* hidden camera footage,
* nor any other material evidence
where some actual scientist, company, or agency
has said anything to the effect of
a confession that evolution is a hoax.
In fact, without a mature understanding of evolutionary processes,
many modern medical advances would not even be possible. (<-- link).
Lastly, again, your arguments accidentally (but unavoidably) accuse "God" of being unjust.
My point about this is the same as before.
If modern humans have access to special proofs of a "God" existing
which prior humans did not have access to,
that would be grossly unfair.
If people in any particular range of IQs
have greater access to acquiring said knowledge and understanding,
that too would be grossly unfair to everyone else.
It's the same problem posed by the story of "Doubting Thomas"; and every other alleged witness to miracles.
Unless I can physically verify the reality of a Jewish Zombie (Unitarianism)
or
an invisible magical being (with multiple personalities) using a dead body as a meat puppet (Trinitarianism), ...
I invoke the right of Thomas
to withhold belief that such has happened.
It's the same problem posed by the claims of Saul/Paul's transformation into Christian theology.
Have any humans enjoyed access to powerful forms of evidence that some OTHER humans have been kept from?
If so, then they are being given unfair advantages.
By definition, that would be unjust (unfair).
See the problem?
God-Fans keep painting him in the worst possible light.
And then they gaslighting everyone who realizes it;
like when they say "It's good that he drowned kittens and puppies just because he was mad at humans. If YOU had a good heart, you'd realize how great that is.".
--
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
Never send a human to do a god's job.
They'll screw it up, every time;
and then literally damn everyone who notices.
--
You are grossly unqualified for the job you claim to have been given.
We all are.
Any All-powerful Super-Being who leaves the eternal fate of any human in your hands (or any human's hands)
is being criminally negligent.
Thus, you should be asking yourself
if any such "God" is really guilty of any such thing.
With that in mind, any humans who boast of being qualified to deliver such messages to humanity
are being amazingly narcissistic.
The same can be said of anyone who thinks they are equipped with the exclusive, divine-magic, secret decoder spirit-goggles, to be able to correctly interpret what's in their favorite version of "The Bible".
You're not.
Nobody is.
It's a cryptic mess of half-thoughts, fallacies, and contradictions.
It has authored so much confusion.
Billions of people who believe in a "God of Abraham"
obsess over 'getting it right'
but can't agree on what any of it really means.
This short video explains that problem in greater detail:
There surely are some random pieces of those texts that some people are sorting out correctly.
But there's no objective way to get all believers 'on the same page' about it.
There is no reliable method for ensuring correct interpretation.
Worse yet, every time some believer says 'there is' (a reliable method),
they are unfairly damning everyone who used that very same method and got a different interpretation.
It's unfairly damning because:
The only way to explain why other people who use the very same method are 'getting it wrong'
is to assume those people have something very wrong with their moral character.
Same method
but different results
means you have to admit it's either:
a.) the fault of the authors of those texts (which would debunk Bible-God)
or
b.) unavoidable as a consequence of basic human failings (which would also debunk Bible-God)
or else
c.) you have to blame the 'other guy' for BEING something wrong (a less virtuous person than you) as the reason why they got the wrong interpretations.
This is why Christianity cannot get its own house in order.
And that really matters, because they should have gotten their own house in order first;
before bothering anyone else.
They should agree between each other what "the message" even IS;
before trying to deliver it.
But they can't.
And that's not my fault.
Nor is it your fault.
Nor is that the fault of Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, etc..
What kind of King would be so utterly inept at trying to be understood by his faithful subjects?
What kind of King would be so horrible at impressing most humans?
What kind of King would FAIL to provide "the fruits" he promised?
You cannot rightly blame that on humans IF such a "God" exists.
What kind of master would plan to violently punish everyone forever
for misunderstanding essential elements of his campaign,
after HE failed to adequately communicate (time and time again)?
It's a good thing none of it's real; or we'd all be screwed.
Although, we are still quite screwed because of the effects of religion.
This is why secular nations are outshining religion nations.
Secular societies have better healthcare, better health, more educated citizens, greater average happiness, lower rates of disease, lower rates of violence, stronger economies, etc..
Science also reveals this:
The higher up a person ascends into formal education, the fewer personal-God-theists there are.
Likewise, the higher scientists ascend into professional accomplishments, ...
the less likely they are to be religious.
Finely honed insights into science
(along with personal maturity and well-earned self respect) are liberating people out of being controlled sheep.
Education is curing increasingly-many people of their religiosity;
-everyone except for the people who have overpowering emotional attachments to it.
Specifically-relevant education is also an effective inoculation against the communicable disease of authoritarian religiosity.
Mental health and maturity are also essential for protecting people against it.
Think about it.
If every child was given ALL that they need, during their entire maturation into adulthood,
and only exposed to your religion's claims after they finish maturing into high-functioning, mentally strong, emotionally healthy, autonomous adults with well-earned confidence and self-respect, ...
Christians would have ZERO (not any) chance of convincing them that Christianity is good or true.
Even the anonymous writers who created the "Christ" character realized this.
"Get 'em while they're young".
Infiltrate and indoctrinate young minds, before they have any protection against it.
You just aren't supposed to notice that it's a willful and direct attempt to subvert children's' right to self-determination.
It's an act justified as "for their own good".
But it blatantly defies protecting every person's "free will".
It's not that I believe in libertarian "free will".
But this point stands, regardless. Because:
Those religions believe it's a thing.
They say it must be protected.
Yet they seek every opportunity to violate it.
And this is a big issue, for many reasons.
It's a human rights violation.
Every human's right to self-determination should be protected.
I'm also against abuses of power.
But let's also notice how Christian fundamentalists are not loyal to their own values.
This is made obvious by the fact that they refute themselves on every values-claim they make.
Their hot takes on "free will" are a great example.
They contradict themselves; with a joyous aggression.
They are not subtle about it.
And then they gaslight anyone who notices.
"I'm totally not doing the thing I just did and about to do again. I would never do that."
But those behaviors aren't going to be very effective against mature adults.
I'm also against abuses of power.
But let's also notice how Christian fundamentalists are not loyal to their own values.
This is made obvious by the fact that they refute themselves on every values-claim they make.
Their hot takes on "free will" are a great example.
They contradict themselves; with a joyous aggression.
They are not subtle about it.
And then they gaslight anyone who notices.
"I'm totally not doing the thing I just did and about to do again. I would never do that."
But those behaviors aren't going to be very effective against mature adults.
This is why Fundamentalist Christianity targets the especially-vulnerable;
the poor,
the uneducated,
the young,
the mentally ill,
the emotionally overwhelmed,
the ego-dependent,
the sheepish people who don't feel qualified to own themselves.
You can't take advantage of vulnerabilities that people don't have.
Some scientists argue that your religion is a "mental illness" rather than a "personality disorder".
I think it's actually both.
Your religious culture's profound sense of entitlement over the lives of others
is an illness if it can be effectively treated.
Whereas, it's a personality disorder if it's hardwired and thus untreatable.
It depends on the person.
Fundamentalist Christianity trains their sheep to emulate clinical Narcissism.
That makes it hard to figure out which of their members are:
a.) merely infected with a complex viral memetic that mimics narcissism
vs
b.) really are clinical Narcissists.
In either case, I am far more qualified to weigh biblical claims against science than you are.
How so?
Because my mind hasn't been hijacked by religious authoritarians.
the poor,
the uneducated,
the young,
the mentally ill,
the emotionally overwhelmed,
the ego-dependent,
the sheepish people who don't feel qualified to own themselves.
You can't take advantage of vulnerabilities that people don't have.
I think it's actually both.
Your religious culture's profound sense of entitlement over the lives of others
is an illness if it can be effectively treated.
Whereas, it's a personality disorder if it's hardwired and thus untreatable.
It depends on the person.
Fundamentalist Christianity trains their sheep to emulate clinical Narcissism.
That makes it hard to figure out which of their members are:
a.) merely infected with a complex viral memetic that mimics narcissism
vs
b.) really are clinical Narcissists.
In either case, I am far more qualified to weigh biblical claims against science than you are.
How so?
Because my mind hasn't been hijacked by religious authoritarians.
Your religious-cultural mafia coercively bans discoveries that conflict with their religious narratives.
They trained you to gaslight yourself; effectively limiting what you can discover about yourself and the world around you.
That's why you don't even realize it when you are gaslighting others.
Your Orwellian cult has tricked you into thinking that
* abuses are kindness,
* disrespect is respect,
* inequity is just,
* bias is balance,
* subjectivity is objectivity,
* divisiveness is harmonious,
* evading accountability is accountability,
etc..
It's a globally colonizing,
mafia, PSYOP grift.
It uses conspiracy theories about science as a way to artificially inflate its own legitimacy.
And then it threatens and attacks everyone who questions it.
---
See how efficient I can be about this?
I didn't even need to go HERE with it:
Comments
Post a Comment