In Defense of Science, Reason and Logic

[Padawanbater2]

Aka. "Atheist Fundamentalism"

I see it more and more these days from religious people.

When you start asking questions that conflict with their belief, you are automatically labeled an atheist fundamentalist.

When you defend education.

When you support science.

When you remain skeptical about suspicious claims.

... I see it as a last resort, similar to the last resort of a child on the playground.. "you're a... stupid DICK! ugh!".

It's a scapegoat. They can't answer what's asked so they call foul, take offense and cry about how it's their belief, and beliefs should be respected. Well, to that I say - no, not all beliefs should be respected equally. There are right beliefs and wrong beliefs. It is better for us all, individually and as a species, to hold as many correct beliefs as possible and discard as many false ones as possible. With correct information you are equipped with better tools to solve problems and answer more difficult questions. There's no excuse for actively holding a false belief, and I can't respect someone for doing it.


Asking questions about your religion isn't fundamentalism, it's philosophy.

 

[Heisenberg]

What you are referring to is called an ad hominem attack; a very common logical fallacy. They attack the person making the claim/argument/questions, instead of addressing the claim itself. As long as a person obeys the rules of evidence (scientific method) the conclusion will always be the same, no matter if your catholic, atheist, or a pastafarian.

The ironic thing is being called a skeptic is more of a complement then an insult. It simply means that you demand evidence for claims. The bigger the claim, the more convincing the evidence must be.

From The Skeptics Guide

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid. A common form of this fallacy is also frequently present in the arguments of conspiracy theorists (who also rely heavily on ad-hoc reasoning). For example, they may argue that the government must be lying because they are corrupt. It should be noted that simply calling someone a name or otherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrong because of a negative attribute of someone making the argument. (i.e. “John is a jerk.” is not a fallacy. “John is wrong because he is a jerk.” is a logical fallacy.) The term “poisoning the well” also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or unpopular. A common form of this also has its own name – Godwin’s Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another’s position and Hitler or the Nazis.

 

[MexicanWarlord420]

lold hard at pastafarian. but Im sure you meant rasta or did that on purpose god im fuckde up right now

 

[Heisenberg]

lold hard at pastafarian. but Im sure you meant rasta or did that on purpose god im fuckde up right now

Pastafarianism is a religion created to show the ease at which a god can be created, and then the difficulty involved in disproving that god.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and may you be touched by his noodly appendage. He created the universe after a night of heavy drinking, which is why it's flawed. Since then he has been reaching out and changing evidence to make the earth seem older than it is, to make it seem like a different god is to blame for his mistakes, ect.

Wiki's definition of pastafairian

According to Henderson, since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to a designer, any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, including a Flying Spaghetti Monster.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#cite_note-usatoday-1 Henderson explained, "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#cite_note-randi-7

 

[mistaphuck]

watch those flat-earthers be right...

lol




I can see your point, I have just always been a live and let live person, I see no benefit to myself for questioning something that give others happiness. especially when most of those people are like children when it comes to change, stubborn and resistant, no ones going to stop believing in god because someone else says they should. Those who choose to maturely debate with opponents on their beliefs can be quite fun I will admit, I work with all christian people at my job,(one even wore a shirt that said "jesus.. my anti-drug" the other day, he kept wondering why I was snickering at him. it was because I wished I was wearing my shirt that says: "weed.. my anti-job") and they are surprisingly open minded. its also fun to get paid to bs about religion and philosophy.




and honestly what can you expect? religion is obviously the easy way out when it comes to answering the really hard questions...

 

[guy incognito]

watch those flat-earthers be right...

lol




I can see your point, I have just always been a live and let live person, I see no benefit to myself for questioning something that give others happiness. especially when most of those people are like children when it comes to change, stubborn and resistant, no ones going to stop believing in god because someone else says they should. Those who choose to maturely debate with opponents on their beliefs can be quite fun I will admit, I work with all christian people at my job,(one even wore a shirt that said "jesus.. my anti-drug" the other day, he kept wondering why I was snickering at him. it was because I wished I was wearing my shirt that says: "weed.. my anti-job") and they are surprisingly open minded. its also fun to get paid to bs about religion and philosophy.




and honestly what can you expect? religion is obviously the easy way out when it comes to answering the really hard questions...

What about the person who still believes in the easter bunny or santa?

Reminds me of an episode of trailer park boys when ricky was going to rely on santa to bring presents for his family. That belief, no matter how much temporary peace of mind it brought ricky was DESTRUCTIVE and would have ruined his daugher and wifes christmas, and then his also. The greater good demands that ridiculous beliefs like this should be stamped out.

The same goes for religion.

"I see no benefit to myself for questioning something that give others happiness"

There is a huge cost WE ALL pay to allow them to harbor these fantasy beliefs. They do not have these beliefs in isolation; they indoctrinate their children and try to force their beliefs on EVERYONE.

The fact that intelligent design must be taught along side evolution is appalling and outrageous. As a proponent of live and let live you should be disgusted by the fact that they are willfully holding back education and human progress. They are harming the entire species with these crazy ass belief.

So what's more important, the happiness a false belief brings to an individual, or the happiness that can be achieved with proper education and guidance toward truth? I know I am happier when I can actually read about REAL science and understand the way the universe works. They are denying that to children which is tantamount to abuse imo.

 

[mindphuk]

The fact that intelligent design must be taught along side evolution is appalling and outrageous.

I think you mean the 'idea' that we should teach them together. Don't overstate something otherwise the fundies will use it against you. Thankfully, it is not a fact that they need to be taught side-by-side. So far science and reason has won and in the US, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion making it illegal to teach ID/special creation as science in a public government school and was tested and upheld in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

 

[Heisenberg]

You didn't point out why creationism shouldn't be taught side by side with evolution. Both are theories, both have evidence...why not give them equal time?

Yes i'm playing devils advocate here, of course I agree with you, just interested in your answers.


I think guy had some interesting points. Religion, namely Christianity in my area, has rules that effect us all to some degree, as well as stalling advancement of the species. Penn Jillette makes a good point by wearing a freemasons ring. When someone points out that the freemasons have a rule which states only club members are allowed to wear the ring, he tells them, I'm not in the club so that rule doesn't apply to me. Religon hasn't figured this out yet. I'm not in your club, and not obligated to follow it's rules.

 

[mindphuk]

You didn't point out why creationism shouldn't be taught side by side with evolution. Both are theories, both have evidence...why not give them equal time?

When someone can point to some testable evidence that might make creationism an actual scientific theory, then I might accept your premise. This is a misuse, an equivocation on the word 'theory.' ID and creationism does not stand up to the standard of what makes a theory and it doesn't have any empirical evidence to back up it's claims so it fails on multiple accounts and doesn't belong in science classrooms.

 

[mistaphuck]

What about the person who still believes in the easter bunny or santa?

Reminds me of an episode of trailer park boys when ricky was going to rely on santa to bring presents for his family. That belief, no matter how much temporary peace of mind it brought ricky was DESTRUCTIVE and would have ruined his daugher and wifes christmas, and then his also. The greater good demands that ridiculous beliefs like this should be stamped out.

The same goes for religion.

"I see no benefit to myself for questioning something that give others happiness"

There is a huge cost WE ALL pay to allow them to harbor these fantasy beliefs. They do not have these beliefs in isolation; they indoctrinate their children and try to force their beliefs on EVERYONE.

The fact that intelligent design must be taught along side evolution is appalling and outrageous. As a proponent of live and let live you should be disgusted by the fact that they are willfully holding back education and human progress. They are harming the entire species with these crazy ass belief.

So what's more important, the happiness a false belief brings to an individual, or the happiness that can be achieved with proper education and guidance toward truth? I know I am happier when I can actually read about REAL science and understand the way the universe works. They are denying that to children which is tantamount to abuse imo.

I do not think they are holding us back... we have made great scientific strides in the presence or religion, they aren't out trying to stifle scientific progress anymore, now they just desperately try to prove what they believe, and be taken seriously. I think that if they ARE wrong it will one day become apparent to them, what they teach their kids is their business, and yes you are right I do not like it when someone tries to convince me to believe, but that does not happen to me very often and most of the christian people I have met have been really cool, I wouldn't dream of calling they're beliefs "fantasies" or "crazy ass". It just doesn't matter to me enough to go out and convince people they are wrong, honestly even though I am not religious in any way shape or form, you me or even stephen fucking hawkings cannot prove them wrong, just as they cannot prove REAL scientific theories wrong. why cant we all just admit we don't know dick?!?

 

[guy incognito]

I do not think they are holding us back... we have made great scientific strides in the presence or religion, they aren't out trying to stifle scientific progress anymore, now they just desperately try to prove what they believe, and be taken seriously. I think that if they ARE wrong it will one day become apparent to them, what they teach their kids is their business, and yes you are right I do not like it when someone tries to convince me to believe, but that does not happen to me very often and most of the christian people I have met have been really cool, I wouldn't dream of calling they're beliefs "fantasies" or "crazy ass". It just doesn't matter to me enough to go out and convince people they are wrong, honestly even though I am not religious in any way shape or form, you me or even stephen fucking hawkings cannot prove them wrong, just as they cannot prove REAL scientific theories wrong. why cant we all just admit we don't know dick?!?

Handicapped people can make great accomplishments also, it doesn't mean they aren't handicapped, it just means they made great accomplishments IN SPITE of something. What they teach their kids is not entirely their business either. Should I be allowed to raise a terrorist? Or should the greater good of society prevail and outlaw such behavior?

Most christians are cool. The majority of people I interact with daily are christians of some variety. That doesn't make their beliefs any less crazy though, in fact it makes it MORE crazy because I know just how intelligent and compassionate most of them are. It bothers me seeing them teach such idiotic fairy tales to such impressionable young children. Maybe one day those kids will be smart enough to see through the bullshit and realize they've been duped, and if they do thats great.

Their beliefs absolutely are crazy ass fantasies too. I don't feel I need to elaborate on this. I'll just include this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fantasy

You, me, or stephen hawking couldn't prove them wrong because they have different standards than the rest of humanity. You can't prove them wrong because they make unfalsifiable claims. When you prove part of their story wrong beyond any reasonable doubt, they will STILL often deny it, and when they can't deny it anymore they simply exclude it and continue on with the rest of the unverified and unfalsifiable claims. Other scientific theories do not. If you prove a scientific theory wrong it will crumble, as it is supposed to. Religion is fundamentally different this way. If they would rely on the same scrutiny for evidence that everyone else relies on it would fall apart in short order.

I'm not saying I know everything, but I know bullshit.

 

[guy incognito]

You didn't point out why creationism shouldn't be taught side by side with evolution. Both are theories, both have evidence...why not give them equal time?

Yes i'm playing devils advocate here, of course I agree with you, just interested in your answers.


I think guy had some interesting points. Religion, namely Christianity in my area, has rules that effect us all to some degree, as well as stalling advancement of the species. Penn Jillette makes a good point by wearing a freemasons ring. When someone points out that the freemasons have a rule which states only club members are allowed to wear the ring, he tells them, I'm not in the club so that rule doesn't apply to me. Religon hasn't figured this out yet. I'm not in your club, and not obligated to follow it's rules.

Creationism isn't a theory. As soon as they have real evidence of creation I will have no problem allowing that evidence to be shown and taught in school.

 

[guy incognito]

I think you mean the 'idea' that we should teach them together. Don't overstate something otherwise the fundies will use it against you. Thankfully, it is not a fact that they need to be taught side-by-side. So far science and reason has won and in the US, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion making it illegal to teach ID/special creation as science in a public government school and was tested and upheld in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Yes yes thanks. The entire idea that this court case had to happen saddens me on the inside though.

 

[Heisenberg]

Creationism isn't a theory. As soon as they have real evidence of creation I will have no problem allowing that evidence to be shown and taught in school.

Yep, the other answer I was looking for. Hypothesis can not be upgraded to a theory without first having supporting evidence. Since creationism has zero evidence, it's not a theory.

Creationists like to call thier ideas intelligent design. It helps them gain some distance from the term creationism, which many people have recognized as bunk. They repackaged it, but it's the same thing. Meanwhile they like to refer to evolution as Darwinism, in an attempt to reduce the theory down to the opinion of one man.