Further Christian Responses To My Responses To Their Responses

My atheist jaunt on Facebook stirred some feathers, it seems. I got some drunken heckling for it from someone that used to be a friend, and since as far as my ideology is concerned I REALLY care about this, I'm going to respond. I don't give a shit if you don't like it. You know who you is.

Firstly, issues were taken with me even having the audacity to argue with christians and what they believe. Why can't I just leave them alone, eh? Why can't I keep my mouth shut?

Ok . . . because most of them think I'm going to hell, think I have no morals, and think my life is meaningless until I open my heart to Jesus. I find that fundamentally impolite. It's hard to say who casts the first stone in these cases, but since I tend not to take issue with the fuzzy sort of Christians - y'know, the nice ones who believe in love and redemption rather than bigotry and scientific wank - I only ever attack a christian as a result of something they've said.

Then the issue was raised of "who's to say who is right? Creationists take things on faith, atheists take things on scientific proof. Who's right?"

Fucking science is right. It was even suggested that, since I haven't analysed the data myself, that scientists are feeding everyone bullshit.

Two words. Peer review.

Before a hypothesis can even be accepted, it has to be reviewed, and counter reviewed, and verified, and then published, and then re-verified for fucking years before it's accepted. The idea that the data needs to be analysed after such an exhaustive process suggests that the entirety of science is an enormous conspiracy created to feed everyone false notions.
Also, I research science fairly exhaustively when debating online with creationists. I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.

Now, the "who is right?" attitude fails entirely with creationists, and it is with creationists that my beef is largest and hardest. Creationists promote intelligent design as SCIENCE. There is either faith, or proof. You can't have both existing concurrently within the same hypothesis. In any other scientific circle, an unprovable and falsifiable hypothesis would be shot down, end of story. So why is it that creationism, which is promoted as a science and therefore can be utterly destroyed be real science, should be any different?

I'll tell you why; it's because creationism as a concept is so fucking laughable that it has to be dignified with the suffix "science". It matters not the collective hypotheses of creation science can be disproved almost instantly. Creationism is touted as science, but is still faith, and has somehow attained a status of near-untouchability despite masquerading as a science that can be dismantled within the space of five minutes.

I was asked why this is an affront to me. Why do I care what other people believe?

I'll be very clear about this, now:

Creationists want their shit taught in schools as science. On an equal or superior footing to actual scientific theories, like evolution. Creationism is not a science, though - as I keep saying, it is a loose collection of hypotheses taken from the bible that try to prove themselves with scientific knowledge despite being diametrically opposed to current thinking.

ANY OTHER scientific hypothesis is subject to peer review and exhaustive research before it is accepted. Creationism can not be, since it is provably false.

Therefore, if it gets taught in schools it undermines the values on which scientific education - and hence scientific endeavour and progress - is based. It is a threat to the continued ascent of the human race. It sounds idealistic but it can easily happen if creation science - a hypothesis at odds with irrefutable physical laws and proven knowledge - gets recognised as a science PURELY because it is a religious conviction that is somehow divorced from conventional scientific peer review.

These people think science is wrong and proves nothing, except the bits that prove them right. They think scientists believe we evolved from monkeys despite this being something that Darwin never said. They think scientists believe that life evolved spontaneously from chemicals despite that theory being debunked for decades.

They think that if the numbers are big enough, there's just no point in trying and you way as well attribute everything to god.

And therein lies my issue. It's not too difficult to understand.

Views: 6

Tags: christ, creationism, evolution, fundamentalism, god, intellectualism, jesus, peer, progress, review, More…science

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Kevin on August 9, 2008 at 6:39am
Agreed. Creationism must never be taught in schools and the idea of it must be fought with very strongly. I have a tee shirt I enjoy wearing and it says "On what day did god make all the fossils?"

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service