A different way of confronting creationists

[epochonaut]

Maybe using science to refute nonsense isn’t always the best strategy. Science requires intellectual integrity and serious research and study. Scientific knowledge is hard won. But you can pull nonsense out of your ass all day long.


You can refute one creationist argument just to have ten more thrown at you. Creationists reserve the right to invoke magic & miracles, but expect biologists to live up to impossible standards of proof in defense of evolution.


I say that instead of refuting nonsense with science, we should fight nonsense with nonsense. I think we should invent a rival intelligent design theory that invokes polytheistic beliefs, like the Greek or Norse pantheon. It would be obviously tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time show them why their own arguments don’t make sense.


We could mirror the arguments used by creationists, but in a pagan guise that they would be forced to reject. For example we could argue that the universe is too complex to have been the product of just one creator. They would be forced to attack their own arguments for creationism. And it gives us the same ability as they have to invoke magic and miracles with a sprinkling of science on top to make it sound, well, sciency.


I’d like to explore this idea because I sense some potential in it. Maybe some clever memes could come out of it. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? What would be a good name for it? “Polytheistic Design”?

[West491]

Hi epoch . Welcome to our humble abode.

epochonaut wrote

Maybe using science to refute nonsense isn’t always the best strategy.

Or, maybe it is the best strategy. The study of science worked tremendously well in changing me from a fundamentalist Christian to an atheist.

Where would I be today if atheists got together and came up with this counter-productive idea of creating a god to have faith in, just to show the religious how ridiculous it is to have faith in a god? I'd probably still be living under a rock.

epochonaut wrote

You can refute one creationist argument just to have ten more thrown at you. Creationists reserve the right to invoke magic & miracles, but expect biologists to live up to impossible standards of proof in defense of evolution.

Evolution, change in a species over time, is a cold hard fact. Anyone willing to pick up a science book and read can easily realize this. Anyone not willing to pick up a science book...is a creationist.

epochonaut wrote

I say that instead of refuting nonsense with science, we should fight nonsense with nonsense.

No. It would quickly give me a headache.

epochonaut wrote

I think we should invent a rival intelligent design theory that invokes polytheistic beliefs, like the Greek or Norse pantheon.

No, I won't create a god, because I'm atheist. Not to mention it would be mighty dishonest of me to feign belief in something, just to prove a point.

I think that it's important that you realize that it is not atheists' duty to get people to abandon their beliefs. However, it is our duty to say, open-mindedly and honestly, "Prove your claim with demonstrable and verifiable evidence, until then, I will maintain disbelief."

Hell, the only reason I care as much as I do now about people's [religious] beliefs is because, most often, our beliefs dictate our actions which effect people living in the real world and not in Namby-Pamby land.

epochonaut wrote

We could mirror the arguments used by creationists, but in a pagan guise that they would be forced to reject.

We do this now with fictitious characters such as Santa, Big Foot, and the fan favorite, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This doesn't help prove our point much because the religious see what they want to see and they think logically only when it is convenient.

[ILOVEJESUS]

West he has made it clear it is tongue in cheek, and is almost a way of empathising with the horse shit that is creatioism , and also reflecting the patronising stance taken, without being particularly confrontational. If it can get your companion to think a little about his own religion then it is worth it, as scientific debate does regularly fall short unfortunately. More weapons in the armoury is how I would look at it.
Having tried in vain to talk sense with a creationist couple myself not too long ago , and finding myself 1 inch from tearing their toes off, I can respect alternative interactive options lol.

[West491]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

West he has made it clear it is tongue in cheek, and is almost a way of empathising with the horse shit that is creatioism , and also reflecting the patronising stance taken, without being particularly confrontational. If it can get your companion to think a little about his own religion then it is worth it, as scientific debate does regularly fall short unfortunately. More weapons in the armoury is how I would look at it.

Well, I don't know how effective this method would be because, as I said earlier,

We do this now with fictitious characters such as Santa, Big Foot, and the fan favorite, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This doesn't help prove our point much because the religious see what they want to see and they think logically only when it is convenient.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I know, but this is a little more in depth. I presume from what was being described. It also patronises the patroniser and I like that. I do take your point though, and I guess the difference is just how commited you get to making up your mythical comparison. If it has no effect you may well annoy the theists more by putting forward arguments as silly as theirs that they have had no experience in dealing with. If not just bite their ears off.

[West491]

Creationists have ears ?

[Professor Chaos]

epochonaut wrote

I say that instead of refuting nonsense with science, we should fight nonsense with nonsense.

[ILOVEJESUS]

West491 wrote

Creationists have ears ?

If they haven't it is usually because of a conversation with myself lol.

[epochonaut]

West491 wrote

Or, maybe it is the best strategy. The study of science worked tremendously well in changing me from a fundamentalist Christian to an atheist.

Not everyone de-converts for the same reason. I'm an ex-Jehovahs Witness. For me it was just a matter of stepping outside of my circle of fellow believers and being exposed to views that are different from my own in whatever form. Not necessarily scientific.

West491 wrote

Evolution, change in a species over time, is a cold hard fact. Anyone willing to pick up a science book and read can easily realize this. Anyone not willing to pick up a science book...is a creationist.

Or science just isn't their favorite subject. Different things reach different people. Maybe something presented in humor would be more effective.

West491 wrote

No, I won't create a god, because I'm atheist. Not to mention it would be mighty dishonest of me to feign belief in something, just to prove a point.

I'm not talking about feigning belief. I'm talking about demonstrating that many of the arguments for intelligent design can just as easily be used for any religion. I would like to see them presented with a faux seriousness like an Onion News article or something. But I definitely wouldn't pretend that I believe it.

West491 wrote

We do this now with fictitious characters such as Santa, Big Foot, and the fan favorite, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The FSM is blatantly made up. But the religions of Zues or Odin were actually believed in by millions of people for centuries, just like Christianity, before becoming extinct. Creating a mock creationist theory from an extinct theology like this could be more effective than Pastafarianism, which no-one has ever taken seriously.

West491 wrote

This doesn't help prove our point much because the religious see what they want to see and they think logically only when it is convenient.

A little humor might sometimes accomplish more than volumes of logic.

[Stargazer]

Logic seems to do nothing at all except perhaps spark anger on the part of creationists. The only logic they acknowledge is the "logic" they've been taught to use.

I like this silliness approach. It's a lot more fun.

[West491]

epochonaut wrote

Not everyone de-converts for the same reason. I'm an ex-Jehovahs Witness. For me it was just a matter of stepping outside of my circle of fellow believers and being exposed to views that are different from my own in whatever form. Not necessarily scientific.

Ok.

epochonaut wrote

Or science just isn't their favorite subject. Different things reach different people. Maybe something presented in humor would be more effective.

I absolutely hate biology (esp. the study of RNA, DNA, proteins, etc.) and I find it ridiculously boring, but recently, I have been studying it to learn more about how my body works, because it is important to know. Science not being one's favorite subject has nothing to do with the necessity of being at least a decently educated individual about how/why our universe operates.

epochonaut wrote

I'm not talking about feigning belief. I'm talking about demonstrating that many of the arguments for intelligent design can just as easily be used for any religion...

Have you never heard a theist say to another theist (or atheist), "But, but, my magical fairy is the one TRUE magical fairy!" C'mon now. Like I said, it's already been done.

epochonaut wrote

A little humor might sometimes accomplish more than volumes of logic.

Ok, if you think that theists will find this humorous, in the least bit.

[West491]

Stargazer wrote

Logic seems to do nothing at all except perhaps spark anger on the part of creationists. The only logic they acknowledge is the "logic" they've been taught to use.

I like this silliness approach. It's a lot more fun.

But at the end, the punchline is supposed to be "Now theists, do you see the errors in your logic?", which still forces theists to think logically. We're back at square one.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Oh West don't be a stinky pooh. Have some fun at least whilst knowing full well you are talking to unpolished turds lol.

[West491]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Oh West don't be a stinky pooh. Have some fun at least whilst knowing full well you are talking to unpolished turds lol.

epoch wrote

I’d like to explore this idea because I sense some potential in it. Maybe some clever memes could come out of it. Does anyone have any thoughts on it?

I didn't mean to be a stinky pooh. I was just responding to the thread.

[Stargazer]

West491 wrote

But at the end, the punchline is supposed to be "Now theists, do you see the errors in your logic?", which still forces theists to think logically. We're back at square one.

I suppose different people have different definitions of logic. If logic is as you define it, then of course everything you say IS logical.

And if that's the case, then I guess we should all just give up and watch an episode of the Three Stooges.