How could anyone "believe in evolution"?

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
40,197
28,063
La La Land North
Right, so they're indoctrinated and believe it because it's what they were taught, not because they discovered it themselves - proves my point.

So if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, and the science they were taught during that day and age was geocentrism, they would be believing that as well, right?


If this is another example of an argument from authority based on the scientific method, then I've already addressed this.
The difference is that anyone can go to a geological museum and see evolution in action for themselves. Or look at the new varieties of fruits available. Or read the same conclusions coming from different sources. What is being taught about evolution doesn't come from some compilation of books and essays written long ago by mostly unknown people making up stories of magic and miracles. It is reports from people with easily verified biographies whose work can be reproduced and studied independently and verified.

Religion is myth, science is observed phenomenon. Religion is blindly accepted, science can be confirmed. The are way different.
 
Jul 2019
44
23
TX
I'm trying to debunk the inconsistencies of bad atheist arguments.

If an atheist argues that people are "indoctrinated" into religion by family or teachers, then by the same standard, people are "indoctrinated" into science via K-12 education. (Most people aren't scientists who invented or discovered the theories themselves - they just believe it because it is what they were taught in school).

(And if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, or in a different culture, they'd be believing in heliocentrism, or whatever the "science" of their day and age is).

So... yeah. I find it funny that someone such as, say, Richard Dawkins could be naive or dishonest enough to believe this - does he honestly believe his fans are scientists themselves, who discovered these theories on their own? Or that they were merely taught it in school, or read it in a book that he published? He's either a hypocrite or a charlatan, just like most atheists are.
Since when has believing what smarter people than you teach you "indoctrination"? or do you only believe those things that you've discovered and taught yourself... I want to see you decry all the things you've learned from others just out of spite...

there's no reason not to believe in evolution, God is all powerful and knowing and all that, so, why couldn't God have made man through the process of evolution? God's holding your butt to this planet via gravity but you aren't all up in arms about gravity being heretical or some crap.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
896
852
Albuquerque, NM
The difference is that anyone can go to a geological museum and see evolution in action for themselves. Or look at the new varieties of fruits available. Or read the same conclusions coming from different sources. What is being taught about evolution doesn't come from some compilation of books and essays written long ago by mostly unknown people making up stories of magic and miracles. It is reports from people with easily verified biographies whose work can be reproduced and studied independently and verified.

Religion is myth, science is observed phenomenon. Religion is blindly accepted, science can be confirmed. The are way different.
Your point made me think of something else. Religious people often claim their proof of god is some internal moment of clarity, or a feeling. Which, contrary to the point you made about science, can't be examined by other people. Can't be tested. People are just supposed to take their word for it. When in fact, their warm and fuzzy feelings are all perfectly explained by knolwedge of biology, physiology, neuroscience, human psychology, etc.

The lack of rational thinking of many religious people (the extremists and the literalists) always amazed me. Do they know they are being disingenuous., do they not see how illogical their so called arguments are? My guess is not, because of their genetic predisposition to believe in things without proof and deny anything that contradicts that. And very intelligent people can be this way as well.

It would be interesting to try and find the genetic component, if any, to people believing in religion
 
Dec 2018
45
23
USA
I'm trying to debunk the inconsistencies of bad atheist arguments.

If an atheist argues that people are "indoctrinated" into religion by family or teachers, then by the same standard, people are "indoctrinated" into science via K-12 education. (Most people aren't scientists who invented or discovered the theories themselves - they just believe it because it is what they were taught in school).

(And if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, or in a different culture, they'd be believing in heliocentrism, or whatever the "science" of their day and age is).

So... yeah. I find it funny that someone such as, say, Richard Dawkins could be naive or dishonest enough to believe this - does he honestly believe his fans are scientists themselves, who discovered these theories on their own? Or that they were merely taught it in school, or read it in a book that he published? He's either a hypocrite or a charlatan, just like most atheists are.
That assumes that education is exactly the same as indoctrination. In some cases indoctrination borrows from the same techniques, so parallels can be drawn. But to pretend they are the same is a false equivocation based on a rather silly reductionism that ignores the differences.

But since the worst thing you have asserted is that atheists are 'just as bad' as religious people, that is hardly a glowing recommendation for your position. And doesn't it then seem hypocritical to criticize us for doing (according to you) exactly what religious folk do? Your hypocrisy knife cuts both ways.

But there is a difference between 'believe this because this here book says so' and the way science education explains the processes by which we sussed things out. There is a difference between the dogmatism of religions pretending to have answers and the ideals of the scientific approach to be open to better predictive models and new data.

When you can spew your nonsense on a computer or phone that you faithed into existence, we can talk about how your faith based approach is just as good as the scientific one. Until then, you are talking out of your butt.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
Religion is myth, science is observed phenomenon. Religion is blindly accepted,
No, science contains theories constructed from observed phenomenon.

"Myth" isn't what you think it is - most of the story of one's own life is one.

science can be confirmed. The are way different.
Science is blindly accepted by the masses, not "confirmed" by them - in practice they're simply putting faith in science or scientists, not studying, confirming, or testing anything themselves.
 
Dec 2018
4,830
1,334
New England
I don't understand how anyone could be naive enough to "believe in evolution".

You all know you were taught or indoctrinated into believing that evolution is true, just as how if you had been born during the Middle Ages, you would be believing that geocentrism was true. Your belief came from your culture, not from nature (and if you were told otherwise, you were lied to).
That's why I put my faith into internet trolls. Only their wisdom can be trusted.
 
Jul 2014
15,634
9,740
massachusetts
I don't understand how anyone could be naive enough to "believe in evolution".

You all know you were taught or indoctrinated into believing that evolution is true, just as how if you had been born during the Middle Ages, you would be believing that geocentrism was true. Your belief came from your culture, not from nature (and if you were told otherwise, you were lied to).
There are literally thousands of tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and zero evidence for the existence of God.
Which one do you choose to believe in?
 
Jul 2008
19,064
12,953
Virginia Beach, VA
I'm trying to debunk the inconsistencies of bad atheist arguments.

If an atheist argues that people are "indoctrinated" into religion by family or teachers, then by the same standard, people are "indoctrinated" into science via K-12 education. (Most people aren't scientists who invented or discovered the theories themselves - they just believe it because it is what they were taught in school).

(And if they'd been born in the Middle Ages, or in a different culture, they'd be believing in heliocentrism, or whatever the "science" of their day and age is).

So... yeah. I find it funny that someone such as, say, Richard Dawkins could be naive or dishonest enough to believe this - does he honestly believe his fans are scientists themselves, who discovered these theories on their own? Or that they were merely taught it in school, or read it in a book that he published? He's either a hypocrite or a charlatan, just like most atheists are.
Being taught science doesn’t mean being indoctrinated. It means being taught the scientific method and how that method was used to develop various theories including evolution. I don’t believe evolution because someone said it’s true. I believe I because I understand how the theory was developed.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
Your point made me think of something else. Religious people often claim their proof of god is some internal moment of clarity, or a feeling. Which, contrary to the point you made about science, can't be examined by other people. Can't be tested. People are just supposed to take their word for it.
Yes, I'm merely supposed to "take a scientist's word for it", on the basis of a simple argument from authority - despite having never tested or confirmed it myself, that's naive.

When in fact, their warm and fuzzy feelings are all perfectly explained by knowledge of biology, physiology, neuroscience, human psychology, etc.
Nay, not all explanations are created equal.

This ends up being the "reductionist" fallacy (as well as the same "argument from authority fallacy". Arguing that something is "made" from something, and equating the two things isn't the same.

For example, the hormone oxytocin is said to play a role in the emotion of love, however directly equating it with "oxytocin" would be wrong - since an oxytocin

An oxytocin hormone "in a vacuum" would not be "love", it would only be when it exists under certain conditions that "love" and so forth exist.

Much as how a car such as a Ford Mustang, and a pile of scrap parts would not be "the same thing" - even if the parts were molecularly identical to the car - it's only when the parts exist or are arranged in a certain way that they become a car.

Likewise, concepts such as "love" within humankind, as far as philosophy and theories on the subject are not considered to be the same as love within the context of mankind, even if genetics may "play a role" in it. Most philosophy on love and so forth is based on various theories, not simply "feelings". (The love of Christ would obviously be something much different than mere "infatuation", for example).

Much as how even if sentiments within animals play a role in morality, in practice those sentiments within animals are not the same as human morality, which is based in philosophical or rational concepts, such as theories of law.

(As I mentioned, animals do things based on instinct which would be illegal or barbaric if people did them, and people are expected to do the opposite - to restrain their instincts, not act on them impulsively - such as how "male sexual aggression" in chimpanzees may play a role in survival and reproduction, but if a human did this, it would be immoral and be considered rape or sexual assault).

The lack of rational thinking of many religious people (the extremists and the literalists) always amazed me.
Sigh... now you're conflating "rationalism" with "empiricism" - not the same things. Even during the Enlightenment era, empiricism was not the only school of knowledge.

Do they know they are being disingenuous., do they not see how illogical their so-called arguments are?
You're showing a superficial understanding of this stuff.

Accepting an argument in favor of science argued from a position of authority isn't "logic" or deduction - it's merely placing faith in an "argument from authority", not thinking logically, testing anything, or performing any experiments oneself.

My guess is not, because of their genetic predisposition to believe in things without proof and deny anything that contradicts that. And very intelligent people can be this way as well.
That has nothing to with "science" or "religion".

Saying that "science" or "a scientist says so" isn't proof anyway, it's just an argument from authority fallacy.

It would be interesting to try and find the genetic component, if any, to people believing in religion
There wouldn't be anything "religious" in that notion, genetic or not - it would be no different than how people act about political opinions or anything else.