Why combating bad claims is important.

[Brian37]

It is scary the amount of both slick snake oil peddlers, will incorporate words from science to debunk science, when really what they are doing is trying to convince themselves and or the uneducated that their false debunking means their god did it or their religion/even those of Asia, own a patent on the universal tool of scientific method. I highly recommend when you run into this tactic elsewhere point out the fact that people of a variety of religions do this. In my 14 years of online debate mainly Christians, but also Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and even once a Rastafarian.

The Christian right especially, has been since Darwin handed their comic book it's ass, have being fighting scared like a cornered wounded cat. The Scopes Trial  was not enough, the Dover ID trial also, not enough to put an end to their fallacious crap. And it does not help that we have Ben Carson, hypocritically answering evolution questions correctly in his science classes, only to shit on the very science that made his field possible.

Facts matter. Science must be defended. To not do so is a danger to the education to future generations. There is no splitting the baby. Yes, religious people can and do accept science and evolution, but science itself, is not a religion and is not there to prop up ANY religious club. Science isn't even there to prop up even any atheist woo either. I still ultimately boils down to, if you make a claim about science, fine, get it in a lab, collect your data, plug it into an experiment with control groups, and then have your findings peer reviewed. 

Evolution is fact, but unfortunately yesterday I ran into a right wing Christian gun nut, and she had 87K followers on twitter. Now those numbers certainly don't tell you how many are actually active, or how many agree with her or how many simply attach themselves to her just to get attention. But that is just a tiny sample of one  small deluded snake oil peddler. But this also is still not exclusive to Christianity. I doubt you could get the Taliban or Isis to say evolution is true either. Scientific method scares people of all religions, so when they realize they cant get rid of it, they attempt to co opt it to debunk parts or all of it to sell you their club.

[Ashground]

If a cult shouts down science every time it contradicts their texts, maybe they shouldn't benefit from science. If they became like the Amish that would be far less harmful. And less hypocritical than benefiting from scientific method while dismissing it as being inferior to their texts or what their priest says or their 'intuitive understanding of the universe'

[Brian37]

If a cult shouts down science every time it contradicts their texts, maybe they shouldn't benefit from science. If they became like the Amish that would be far less harmful. And less hypocritical than benefiting from scientific method while dismissing it as being inferior to their texts or what their priest says or their 'intuitive understanding of the universe'

Well even some individual families in the Amish community are hypocritical. I've seen Amish people on TV using cell phones.  When progress is so far ahead of you and you still cling to old crap, it becomes really hard to maintain. But really the Amish are not a threat because of size. If they were the size of Islam or Catholics or Conservative Baptists, I am sure they would not be so meek.


Again, we are using labels as an example here, but really what is going on is human behavior. Groups don't act out when left alone for the most part. No different than any other species. 

It is also why I don't give Buddhists a pass. The west has a delusional love affair with the religions of the Orient and Asia. But the truth of our ENTIRE species worldwide, in it's ENTIRE history, is that we have never been violence free. There has never been a religion that has been a cure for all groups all at the same time. So again, while you cannot force religion out of existence, when we view ideas and  claims from any given religion, we fail to consider enough that humans are the result of empathy or cruelty, and not the club itself. So when you view a label as peaceful, or more peaceful, that is a geographical time frame issue.

[Brian37]

And if I am not correct, they have a ritual where they let their kids as late teens go out into the rest of the world for a while. On the surface it sounds fair, but it is really a cruel trick. You have to keep in mind from a young age, they have been sold a script, have been denied modern things, and what they don't like to tell you is many, when they do this, if the kid decides to do their own thing, they do cut them off. But most of the time that deprivation of the outside world causes the kid not to handle it, so they come back anyway. The same thing happens with some who manages to escape North Korea. Many will return because they don't know how to live independently and are used to following a script.

LDS is even worse, because you try to leave, there is no going back, even if you want to.

[Ashground]

I don't give Buddhists a pass. The west has a delusional love affair with the religions of the Orient and Asia.

I agree completely. It's easy to see a religion's faults when you're faced with it in your own society and easy to see unfamiliar religions as 'beautiful' or even 'harmless'.

And if I am not correct, they have a ritual where they let their kids as late teens go out into the rest of the world for a while. On the surface it sounds fair, but it is really a cruel trick. You have to keep in mind from a young age, they have been sold a script, have been denied modern things, and what they don't like to tell you is many, when they do this, if the kid decides to do their own thing, they do cut them off. But most of the time that deprivation of the outside world causes the kid not to handle it, so they come back anyway. The same thing happens with some who manages to escape North Korea. Many will return because they don't know how to live independently and are used to following a script.

I hadn't considered that comparison. To be honest I always thought Anabaptist was a fairer way to do it because at least they wait until they're an adult to choose. But you're right, in reality very few people are going to be willing to endure exile from those they've known their whole lives. I still think it's more moral than baptizing babies, that's like declaring a baby's political views. At least if a child is indoctrinated by a political movement they still have the protection of a secret ballot.

[Brian37]

In an evolutionary sense, even with other species, once you get an animal used to human care, some species cannot adjust to the wild if released, and have a lower rate of survival. It is also why when someone migrates to a society they become the minority in, after being used to being a majority, they have a harder time functioning, but that is also the fault of the majority too.

Humans simply do not want to face the fact that we are simply one species among many, and all labels aside, majority or minority, all capable of both cruel acts and compassionate acts. It is simply up to more humans to face them with what choice they want to make.

[Ashground]

It is simply up to more humans to face them with what choice they want to make.

I'm not sure I understand what your last sentence means.

[Brian37]

It is simply up to more humans to face them with what choice they want to make.

I'm not sure I understand what your last sentence means.

I think it is obvious, we can foster the idea that beating the shit out of each other in the long term really doesn't unite us. Violence in our species is easy, seeing others as the same species is much harder. In a very literal physical sense. We cannot see the entire planet all at once all at the same time. It is up to humanity to chose non violence over violence.

[Ashground]

I see what you mean. Reminds me of what people who've been into space say about looking back on Earth. Apparently it's a very moving experience and makes political conflicts seem extremely petty.

Also reminds me of the Christmas Truce in WW1. I think it's the most beautiful example of it being nations or factions that want war and if everyone suddenly said 'No' the conflict would simply evaporate. Although it seems unrealistic for the foreseeable future that all conflicts will simply stop.

[Brian37]

I see what you mean. Reminds me of what people who've been into space say about looking back on Earth. Apparently it's a very moving experience and makes political conflicts seem extremely petty.

Also reminds me of the Christmas Truce in WW1. I think it's the most beautiful example of it being nations or factions that want war and if everyone suddenly said 'No' the conflict would simply evaporate. Although it seems unrealistic for the foreseeable future that all conflicts will simply stop.

I have an on going falling out that happened with other atheists on another page, and the cannot see that I agree with you about that truce. What makes it bittersweet isn't that Allied Christianity, or German Christianity are good, what makes it bittersweet is that even when we are at odds to that level, we still can chose to not hurt each other.

I DO value the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. I do value the likes of Ghandi. I do value the likes of Ann Frank I do value the likes of Malala. But even with that, it still does not make their god claims true,  or the idea of the word "religion" itself good. It is still poison because even with all the good people worldwide, in all religions, it still poisons our species ability to see ourselves as the same species. NO you cannot get rid of it by force, but we need to manage it globally better by stop ignoring the problems it causes.