Two Types of Creationist

There are two main types of creationist, but no doubt there are some outliers that don't fit within these categories.

Type One: The Ignorant Idiot

The best examples of this type of creationist are people like Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, NephilimFree etc. These people sincerely believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a myth, that scientists are part of an enormous atheistic conspiracy and that they are doing god's work. The best approach with people like this in my experience is to minimize the amount of condescending ridicule in your dialogue and to try and present facts and evidence as clearly and openly as possible. Take the time to explain how scientific theories are derived and how creationism is not scientific but is actually purely religious. When they try to preach the gospel to you in the middle of a discussion about science (as Ray Comfort loves to do), don't engage them on this issue, but bring the discussion back around to science. A lot of these types of people, despite years of indoctrination will eventually see reason, don't give up on them.

Type Two: The Deceitful Demagogue

Ok, Demagogue isn't really the right word to use here, but I wanted to continue the alliteration so...
These are the people who make money by pedalling creationist nonsense (or at least try to). They may or may not believe everything they teach but either way there is a lot of doublethink and cognitive dissonance either way. Many of these people have gone to great lengths to achieve qualifications in scientific disciplines, only to then go and work for propaganda-mills like AnswersinGenesis or Creation Ministries International. They publish magazines, build museums theme parks, produce films, arrange speaking tours and sell merchandise, all for profit. I haven't had any experience discussing anything with these people, nor have I seen any debates with any of them. They are heavily invested (perhaps both emotionally and financially) in their "ministry" and may never change their mind (in the public eye anyway). Type two creationists are entirely dependent on the existence of type one, because the ignorant religious masses are the ones who buy their magazines, videos, movies, go to their events and pay to go to their museums theme parks. If type one creationists fade into non-existence, then type two creationists will eventually follow once the money dries up.

Not Getting Through to the Propaganda Mill

I just thought I'd have a quick look at the AiG website to find something to write about. One article jumped out at me, it was called "Are They Teaching the Truth in Biology Class?".

The large majority of the article was about how scientific progress is made, and old ideas are sometimes overthrown by new ones. I'm not going to address this part as it was fairly innocuous.

What I really wanted to see was their latest and greatest arguments against evolution. What surprised me when I read it, is that they really didn't have a single argument against it, they just kept saying things like "[Evolution] is getting harder to defend." and "this view is getting more difficult to defend in a logically coherent fashion." They didn't present a single piece of evidence, or even try to construct an argument, they simply tried to explain the mechanisms evolution works by and claim that science is going to prove it wrong. I specifically remember at the beginning of the article they wrote that "Science has become somewhat of an idol in our culture." yet here they are waving science as a magic wand trying to claim that it will prove evolution wrong.

AnswersinGenesis are an absolute joke, as with all creationists, there is an enormous wealth of evidence for evolution, and it's available at a single click of a button, seriously, click here. If creationists wish to remain pig-ignorant it's their onus, but whenever they say something stupid I'll continue to call them morons, or if they're not telling the truth I'll call them liars.

Anachronistic Old Testament.

I don't feel like I need to go into depth explaining why the Bible is utterly unreliable as a history book. In any case, here is what I consider to be one of the strongest criticisms of the 'good book' and its historicity.

It has been shown by archaeology that the Old Testament (almost in its entirety) was composed at the very earliest, during the reign of Josiah. Josiah was King of Judah between 641 and 609 BCE, and many of the events described within the Pentateuch are supposed to have occurred around 4000 BCE. Here are a few anachronisms that place the limit of date composition to the mid first millennium.
-Camels are mentioned in the Patriarchal Narratives as used by Arabian Traders, and the products they were carrying "gum, balm, and myrrh", as these products were not traded and camels were not used in the area until well after 1000 BCE.
-Isaac encounters the Philistines in Genesis 26, but the Philistines didn't even enter this area until after 1200 BCE. (several-thousand-year discrepancy there)
-The names of several cities are recorded as being destroyed by Joshua, but the majority of these did not exist at the time. Including Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Lachish, Hazor and many others. The ones that did exist at the time were not destroyed during the timeline of Deuteronomy.

In fact the entire history before ~1200 BCE written in the Old Testament is like a complete fabrication, as all evidence points towards the Israelites only appearing in Palestine around this time, and it is most probable that the Israelites were simply a sub-group of Canaanites, but that's an issue for another day.

What fascinates me with the historicity of the Old Testament the most, is that Jesus, as attributed to him in the Gospels, speaks as if Abraham and other Old Testament characters were really historical figures. Christians believe that Jesus is actually God, yet he doesn't seem aware that the people he speaks about are fictitious.

Demons and Devils

They don't exist, and to prove it I will write out my challenge to any evil (or good) spiritual entities online. When nothing happens, my point will have been proven.

I challenge any supernatural forces or spirits or anything to come prove your existence to me right now. I will worship the first one that appears, so Gods, Goddesses, fairies, Poltergeists, Demons, Devils, Angels, Djinns, whatever, have a race to prove your existence.

Some time later...

I actually feel a bit silly writing this, but nothing has happened. It just goes to show that either A) no conscious supernatural force exists or B) if one exists, it doesn't want us to know about it.

Ussher

No, nothing to do with the singer.
I had always thought of the work of Bishop Ussher trying to add up the dates from the old testament to come up with a date for the creation of the world was a bit of a joke. It just seems so obviously wrong to me. Apparently the folks at CMI don't feel the same way. They're still promoting this 17th century hack-job of a history book.

Link

Sorry!

To all my readers I apologise for being so inactive in the last few weeks. I was supposed to be practising for my end of year recital, but I always managed to find ways to procrastinate, but keeping up with the blog didn't end up being one of those things. I've been reading a bit lately so I have some fresh ideas to put out there.

I plan on getting some posts done this week.

Old Atheist Strawman

One of the most irritating things about being an atheist, is when people intentionally try to misconstrue your position as faith-based. It usually comes in the form of an accusation like "You have faith that God doesn't exist", by the time you attempt to correct them, your detractor has usually moved onto something else, or if not they generally seem to ignore you.
I wrote a post last year explaining the positions of atheism and agnosticism and showed why they are not mutually exclusive, because they are essentially dealing with different realms. In short, agnosticism is claiming you do not or cannot have any knowledge pertaining to the existence of god(s), while atheism is a reaction to the claim that god exists.


This 'faith' strawman is rather puzzling, because the accuser is almost always a person who believes in god purely on faith, yet they accuse us of having a faith, as if it was a bad thing. There is no more faith involved in being an atheist that there is in rejecting the validity of homeopathic medicine. Until you show me evidence that your unlikely claim is true, I am going to disbelieve it, which requires no faith on my part

Friday Fundies

This is a perfect example of how religion can rot your brain, and be detrimental to society as a whole. Imagine if there was larger number of people who believe that the rapture was just around the corner, giving them the excuse to do nothing? I think the earth would become dilapidated and run down fairly quickly. It's related to the conservative Christian political view known as Dominionism, where based on a verse in Genesis, where God tells Adam that he has dominion over all the earth, the Dominionists take that as a command to rape and pillage the earth, because they believe that their god will create a new one soon anyway and destroy the old one. It's dangerous, and poisonous. People actively promoting these beliefs need to be lobotomized to prevent them from infecting others with this mind-rot of a religious/political doctrine.

Quote# 40793

(A rapture thread, this one has a bunch of folks talking about how they have no motivation because of the rapture being "just around the corner"):


I hear you on this. I have to constantly fight the feelings of "what is the use". Its like we have diagnosis of a fatal incurable disease and we have only so long to live.

 Source