Oh boy. There are places on the internet that are still full of arrogant ignorance. A creationist charged into a subreddit with some, ummm, assertions.
Athiesm is a religion that insidiously postures itself as science, indoctrinating the youth with made up stories about the origins of life, and history of the universe.
Example of atheist beliefs in science that are not proven or factual and simply a belief yet are taught as factual science.
Why is it that these guys who hate atheism so much don’t know how to spell atheism? That’s especially ironic given that nothing he complains about are actually tenets of atheism. His gripe is with science, not atheism — a great many religious people are entirely comfortable with accepting every idea on his list. It’s just that most (not all) atheists don’t have any problem with the authority of science, it takes a dedication to religious dogma to so readily accept counterfactuals.
Let’s look at his claims one by one.
1. We are stardust
This is not an atheist idea.
The base material of the universe is hydrogen — it’s mostly hydrogen. So the question is, where did the heavier elements come from? The religious belief is that a god simply poofed them all into existence. A better, non-miraculous explanation is that the process of nucleosynthesis, a fusion reaction that takes place in stars, built up the carbon and iron and oxygen etc. over time, and that these elements were scattered throughout the universe and used as building blocks for planets and people etc. We have evidence for nucleosynthesis. We lack evidence of divine poofing.
2. Human beings are apes
This is not an atheist idea.
Humans definitely belong in the ape clade — the morphological, genetic, and molecular evidence link us. If an alien were to classify and categorize life on Earth, they would group us with the other primates. There is no evidence to suggest that humans are discretely unique in a way that makes them non-apes. This is an old, failed argument by creationists that there is something in the human brain that isn’t shared with other apes.
3. The earth is 5 billion years old
This is not an atheist idea.
Go argue with the physicists and geologists. We know for sure that the Earth is older than 6000 years old, the usual number trotted out by creationists.
4. Human beings share a common ancestor with apes that we evolved from in Africa millions of years ago
This is not an atheist idea.
Geneticists and anthropologists have the details. We can, for example, measure the differences between the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, measure the rates of mutation and fixation, and estimate how long the two species have diverged. It’s millions of years. The anthropologists can tell us our ancestors were African. Where is the creationist evidence for, for example, the Garden of Eden or Adam & Eve?
5. Everything evolved from a single cell organism
This is not an atheist idea.
Likewise, we have evidence of all the shared commonalities between us and all other organisms. We have evidence of the processes that generate the differences. Common origin is the most parsimonious explanation. Meanwhile, the Christian Bible doesn’t even contain the concept of cells, or single-celled organisms. Would he like to argue with the evidence for cell theory?
6. Fish evolved into amphibians, and then into reptiles, and then birds, and then mammals?
This is not an atheist idea. It’s also not a scientific idea. It’s a creationist bogosity.
For someone trying to argue with evolution, he sure doesn’t seem to understand the theory. He presents a linear caricature of evolution, and claims that’s what we teach? Mammals didn’t evolve from birds, or from modern reptiles, or from modern amphibians, or modern fish. Come on, do better.
All of these claims are not proven. Yet, they are taught as fact. The definition of fact is a thing that is known or proven to be TRUE. Again, none of these claims are nor can they ever be proven to be true. Therefore they are not factual and should not be treated as factual. That is Where the indoctrination accusation claims stand because these beliefs are treated as proven factual science when they are an indoctrination of athiest beliefs being taught as factual science about the origins of life which is religious.
Allow me to quote one of the slides I present in my introductory biology class.
There is no such thing as “truth” or “proof” in science! All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
Scientists do use the word “fact”, but only in the sense that Stephen J. Gould defines:
In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
This class has nothing to do with atheism; it’s not a subject we discuss at any point in the semester.
Another thing I teach:
Science is not a catalog of facts to be memorized.
Science is a process for acquiring and evaluating new knowledge.
Religion does the opposite of that; it’s an interpretation of a few old myths presented as inviolate dogma. There’s no way you can regard science as a religion.
And why is a religious dogmatist using “religious” as a pejorative?
He throws in a few references, but they’re all from Answers in Genesis, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
Althougfh Carl Sagan who famously said this was an athiest, well Humanist and the Poet of Science and put it just brilliantly.
here – among other places
Although our Sun is actually a far brighter and different than average star albiet almost every star we see in our night sky is still far brighter than it is.
^ Note the vast majority of stars are red dwarfs which are aboyt two thirds of all stars that we notably do NOT see inour skies simp0ly becuase they are too dim and small to be visible -the very rare superflaring nearby one aside. G type stars like our sun are about 5% of stars. Giants and Supergiants & O-B type stars are less than 2% of all stars but are the ones most luminous and thus make up the majority of the ones’we can see at night. White dwarfs make up about 10% of stars – biut of cours ethat percentage is ever rising as more stars age and die leaving those as remnant cores to shine dimly at leats invisible light for aeons to come.
Percentages as recalled from an old Ken Croswell article in Astronomy magazine from back in the1990’s ontehcahcnes of life on a planet orbiting the stars of Alpha Centauri.
^Got the article and magazine on my bookshelf somewhere – an early fave of mine but probly gonna take a while to find it now.
Atheists tend to have a closer relationship to science than the god believers. To make his argument the author uses this connection to blur the lines between Atheism and Science. He does this by projecting the Christian relationship with the bible onto Science and the Atheists. “All of these claims are not proven. Yet, they are taught as fact.” Sounds like the bible to me. He inadvertently exposes how the Christians leaders use the bible.
I have to disagree a bit here. I know that creationists do not understand the meaning of words as science uses them. There are facts, but they are careful and repeatable observations. What he confuses as facts are in fact very strongly evidenced theories. (Of course, a creationist would then go on to confuse a theory with a hypothesis.)
But yes, ultimately, the confusion stems from a static view of knowledge, versus a structured process which has been shown to dynamically and reliably extend our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in. Fundamentalism does the opposite.
Ah, but it doesn’t specifically mention The Bible or give his Gawd credit, so it might as well be atheism according to their dogma.
He’s using it as pejorative for two reasons, 1) the author wants to brand atheists who insist that they don’t have any sort of the religion as hypocrites, and 2) so he can brand biology as a false religion.
Typical creationist babbling.
Science is a religion.
Atheism is a religion.
Xianity isn’t a religion. It is a personal relationship with jesus.
A personal relationship with an imaginary being who is nowhere and does nothing.
Whatever.
If Atheism is a religion, why doesn’t the author mention what deity Atheists worship? I would like to know the nature of this being and its powers so I may more passionately worship it, him, her.
..treated as factual proven science [yep] when they are an indoctrination of atheist beliefs being taught as factual science about the origins of life which is religious.
This sentence is deeply ambiguous, though I doubt proper punctuation would help very much.
It can be read as claiming that the origin of life is religious, though I believe the author is attempting to claim that those well evidenced scientific facts constitute religious beliefs.
IME the religious people get very upset at the notion that they are just another type of animal, rather than gawds specially chosen snowflakes. They get even more upset when informed that their book of superstitious beliefs was written by Jewish Iron Age goat herders who treated their wives and daughters like livestock.
Such enlighted.
I fully expected a personal encounter after having spent enough time on my knees to produce callouses on them. I gave up after 50 years of ” “. Nothing even close to an encounter or anything else I’d call a personal intervention. Following my faith has led to little but grief as real opportunity stopped by my table, had a drink and some conversation and then moved on while I watched for god’s opportunity.
We are golden
I suspect that’s not because there’s an inherent connection between atheism and science, but rather that there’s a conflict between science and religious dogma. If the religious would just stop claiming things to be true that objectively aren’t, the difference would soon disappear.
I’ve seen several creationist posts on the question that if we’re descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? I can take it even further — if we’re all descended from single-cell organisms, then why are there still single-cell organisms?
@13 weylguy wrote (sarcastically) if we’re descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
I reply: if there weren’t monkeys, the half-baked ham wouldn’t have any circus.
“Not atheist ideas” sure, but I have never understood how anyone could know the facts laid out above and continue to believe in some sky wizard. There are no gaps left where a man in the sky could be hiding (and what a curious concept that he was “hiding”).
Carl Sagan said “star-stuff”.
Joni Mitchell said “stardust”.
Nemo #11
we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden
If Protestants descended from Catholics, then…why are there still Catholics?
@17 “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden” is Argiope spider talk.
nomdeplume @15:
Nor have I, but if there’s on thing I’ve learned in my 70 years, it’s that there are many, many things I don’t understand, including what makes many people tick.
But the fact is (and we are concerned with facts, right?) that theists have massively contributed to our understanding of the universe (as meagre as that understanding is). And continue to do so.
And yeah, there are always gaps.
What with the officially Christo-fascist SCOTUS and the fundigelicals about to retake power, I have a sinking feeling that Creationism is about to make a HUGE–or rather UGE–comeback.
@21 ( sigh) me too . I’m not looking forward to the creationist takeover of science as that going to have a terrible impact on medical research. Most medical breakthroughs of the 20th century were due to understanding either natural selection ( Sabin vaccine for polio ) or common ancestry ( pig and cow insulin used for human diabetics until the 1980s) . I just gave one example of each there’s certainly others
Contradiction in terms.
They can take over the administration and the funding and the regulatory agencies and the cultural cachet and whatnot, but they can’t take science over.
Any society would soon collapse under that sort of regime; not that it would get to that point.
Or: There will always be Anthony Fauci and PZ-types around.
[I asked my AI toy]
If Protestants descended from Catholics, then…why are there still Catholics?
If Americans descended from Europeans, then…why are there still Europeans?
I have a few creationist relatives and I usually get the cats can’t evolve into dogs nonsense 🤦🏾♀️. At that point I try to gently explain about miacids
@1,2 3 : Found it! “Does Life exist at Alpha Centauri’ article by Ken Croswell pages 27 – 37 in Astronomy magazine, April 1991, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Particularly the “Galactic Pyramid” (stellar types numbers pyramid) on page 31 which has a colour coded triangle with the more populous spectral types at base to the least populous spectral types at the tip listing % ~ages of stars as :
10 % white dwarfs
70 % red dwarfs
15 % K dwarfs (Orange dwarfs eg Epsilon Eridani, Epsilon Indi -ed.)
4 % G stars including the Sun
1 % A & F stars (Think the more massive components of Sirius & Procyon plus Vega & Altair among others – ed.)
Less than 1% – all other kinds of stars!
For comparison in our night sky not a single red or white dwarf is visible, only a handful of main-sequence orange, and yellow dwarf stars are visible and the vast majority of visible stars are giants, supergiants and extremely luminous but rare OB spectral type suns.
Quibbling pedantically but :
Except in mathematics! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof )
Although that does raise the question of whether maths is actually science or simply related to and one of the tools of science?
Nah, StevoR.
Even in math, proofs depend on the particular axiomatic system at hand.
Notice the caveats in your own adduced article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof#Undecidable_statements
—
Yes, mathematics is a tool, as is logic, and science is a methodology based on certain axioms too.
(And logic does indeed do proofs, again based on whatever axiomatic system is chosen and the type of logic)
Creationists can be so stupid….
Atheists existed before the theory of evolution and before modern geology. Atheism existed in ancient Greece.
Atheism means not believing in the (currently dominant) gods. Nothing else.
Even Ayn Rand was an atheist, FFS. Atheism is an absence of faith. The deafult position if you do not believe in invisible people pulling strings.
Why did I read that as “I present in my introductory bigotry class”? Looks like that’s the education Mr debate-me got.
“If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby”
This article is biased by redditor internet atheist, guys be health mind, you must be ex-atheist because this real Logic a hateful and rethoric against individual, So leave cult atheist and accept great higher power than our, God.
You know that atheism population has 146.3 million from 2024?
This article is biased hateful by leaning anti-religious, it will violation constitution, Let FBI expose your bigotry anti-religious
I HAVE BEEN NERD SNIPED.
PZ, when you see a scientific statement that is obviously either wrong or overly-rounded when there is actually a known and common version that has greater accuracy, put in the number that is known and more accurate — with a qualification that acknowledges that there are still error bars; still uncertainty. It’s literally the least you can do.
• The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Something that is obviously happening with the creationist rephrasings and distortions of scientific facts is that the entire chain of scientific inference is dropped and all that’s left is statements that are meant to look like bald dogma rather than conclusions based on scientific evidence. Putting back all of the inferential chain is hard work and more verbiage that requires more detailed knowledge, but you could at least try for the minimum — again with qualification to acknowledge that there’s more that could be said.
• The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, based mostly on the measurement of the radioactive decay of uranium-238 into lead-206.
Finally, you might emphasize the locations that the uranium and lead are found.
• The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, based mostly on the measurement of the radioactive decay of uranium-238 into lead-206, which were found either in zircons in the oldest places on earth, or in meteorites which fell to earth that date from the origins of the solar system.
Although that’s getting a bit long for a short response.
I don’t like this. It could be theistic, but it is also actually atheistic. Maybe you could say that it’s theistically neutral?
Actually, I think there are at least three possibilities, and you’re not going to like the third possibility. But then, neither will theists.
1) God does not exist, and scientific conclusions based on scientific evidence are correct, or as close to correct as we can get.
2) God does exist, but made the universe about 13.8 billion years ago such that the earth would form about 4.5 billion years ago (and scientific conclusions based on scientific evidence are still correct, or as close to correct as we can get.)
3) God exists and is true — God made the universe, but the observable universe is a perfectly undetectable deception that only looks about 13.8 billion years old with an earth that is about 4.5 billion years ago. Yes, that’s usually called the Omphalos hypothesis (Gosse’s Omphalos is actually slightly more sophisticated, but that sophistication doesn’t really work when examined closely).
Let’s check the pertinent phrase from AiG’s
Nothing we see matters; no reasoning matters; everything that looks real is actually not. The universe is a set filled with props, but the set and props cannot be distinguished by any test that exists — you just have to accept the dogma that the universe is a set filled with props.
Total epistemic nihilism.
Ironically, the statement continues:
Fallibllism actually undermines dogma far more than it does science, but creationists don’t like to think about that.
Isn’t the original reddit article being responded to biased hateful by leaning religious?
You have no idea how the USA constitution works, or how the USA FBI works. Do you even live in the USA yourself?
Well, let’s see … he’s stupid, and he’s barely articulate, so … probably yeah. There’s a very good chance that he lives in the USA and voted for Trump last month. :P