Atheists And Science

There was a legit discussion going on about whether the God hypothesis can be falsified. A hypothesis that involved the existence of God.Dredge turned this into an attack on scientific observations by describing them as "atheistic". He attacked the scientific observations themselves. But the observations were supposed to be a given. (He rejected the basic observations in another thread - concerning the development of embryos)The thread was supposed to be about the "absorption" of the data and the conclusions then reached would be concerning whether the existence of God can be disproven based on the full facts of the observations with the look toward what the furthest reach we can possibly make for truely solid interpretations. We were supposed to stretch out our interpretation of the data as far as we could realistically go to see if the existence of God could be falsified.Dredge does not even allow us to collect basic datums. So biological evolution and embryo anatomy development will get conflated (though the two are probably something that goes well together, but there is a little supposition involved, and they are not the same thing as evolution is more hypothetical than the real time observations of embryos) and it gets worse:it is much worse when both evolution and embryology are TIRELESSLY used as a synonym for "atheism" - very tortuous for an actual productive debate attempt.We put the extremist (not scientific!) interpreted conclusion before the scientific observational data. The proverbial cart before the horse problem. The "horse" is plain, basic scientific observations.Dredge seems to want to cripple the system so we can't get past "atheist atheist" slings. You talk about data, he screams "atheist". It was really bad in another thread (on embryology). Dredge seems to suck at productive debate & discussion. It sucks. He sucks. He makes the threads suck.

I've been studying "creation science" since 1981 and discussing it on-line with creationists since 1986, so I've gone around this park a few times. Dredge is sadly typical of creationists, just more flagrant in his malfeasance that most. The way you walked into his traps suggested that you were not very familiar with creationists and their shtick (just as you seem unfamiliar with fundamentalists), but at least now you have learned.A couple quotes for your further enlightenment:

quote:

---

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

---

 

Quora:

---

Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them? I only do it because I care about them deeply and don't want them to end up in hell. I feel like some people avoid me because of this. Is there any way to get through to them?

​

by Doug Robertson, studied at University of Maine
Updated Dec 11 2018

​

The entire process is not what you think it is.

​

It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn't about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can't leave yours.

​

If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn't already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.

​

On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.

​

The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the "others". These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the "Tribe".

​

If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.

​

These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.

​

Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn't safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.

​

This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the "Tribe" because they know that "others" reject them.

​

Mix in some ritualized chanting, possibly a bit of monotonous repetition of instructions, add a dash of fear of judgment by an unseen, but all-powerful entity who loves you if you do as you are told and you get a pretty powerful mix.

​

Sorry, I have absolutely no wish to participate in someone's brainwashing ritual.

---

 

Strictly speaking, scientific observations are atheistic. Here, "atheistic" just means "without theistic assumptions." Scientific observations made by Christians are just as atheistic as those made by others. To say that they are atheistic is just to say that they are objective or factual.The problem here is that too many people mistakenly take "atheistic" to mean "anti-theistic".

You might have a point on the terminology (though you could point out that the way you described the terms is not a standard convention).But the attack on "intelligent design" gets twisted also. To me, the gaps in the fossil record mean that there is a possibility that we are "lab rats" and there is absolutely nothing in the biological fields of scientific observation to disprove progressive genetic engineering. (It would be an enormous amount of genetic tinkering - over the whole earth!)We could live on a planet where life is spliced by non-humans. Even the United States government feels it is possible that biological life (whether indigenous to earth, from ancient Mars, from another solar system, or from the (further out) stars) can possibly live underneath the earth & there could be an advanced civilization that existed from as far back as over one billion years ago.Intelligent design is something that is loudly promoted by theistic evolutionists (vocal progressive creationist joined to the hip, as well), but a far more moderate theory is increasingly seen as remotely plausible - humans probably aren't alone, life could have evolved far earlier than we think (or thought, as island trees were certainly possible over one billion years ago), most islands & continents are completely destroyed (especially pre Cambrian) by plate movements, and UAPs are increasingly seen as something non-human if they can be conclusively demonstrated to NOT BE FOREIGN (HUMAN) GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY.I am amazed the Covid-19 debate, over the lab verses nature, has not clued us in on the mistaken assumption that "intelligent design" musing involves theories only on agencies that are based on divine intervention schemes. (Although the ancient Christian "gnostics" would have a good time with creation schemes and the chain of agents - Colossians 2 comes to mind, read good translations (NRSV?)).Intelligent design is something that suffers misappropriation, and it is worse than (Dredge aside) the typical references to "atheism" getting misused.