I’m would like to share two of my more frequently used sites. These sites focus on logical fallacies and cognitive bias. These are common habits/perceptions individuals have that are counterproductive and even toxic. By being aware and educating ourselves on these things, hopefully we can better communicate and understand each other.
These sites are very user friendly and I very much appreciate its simplicity considering my struggle with long textbook explanations and articles. Also, I am an idiot.
Biology is what organic matter is made up, NOT what made the organic matter
Cosmology is the study of the cosmos NOT what made the cosmos
Genetics is what we’re made of. NOT what made us.
Statistics are prone to error and human made
Physics explain motion and such, NOT what created those molecules and movements
Geology does not disapprove Noah’s flood, in China there was a massive flood in the BC era. Geology studies the earth and rocks, NOT what created the earth and rocks
Neurology does not disapprove the soul as the soul is what makes you, you. It’s reincarnated and ever lasting.
Anthropology is the study of human movement throughout history, NOT what made those humans.
There are things we humans cannot explain, don’t just say “well science” science cannot explain everything. There is ZERO harm in believing in a God. So why not just do so?
“Theology is the study of superstitious myths associated with creator gods, NOT what made those gods.”
What, precisely made your god? This is the long-debunked Argument from First Cause. If your god doesn’t need to be created, why on Earth do you think everything else does? What you’re ascribing to an unproved “god” - whose properties you can’t even validate, let alone the specific attribute of “existent” - can be applied to a universe we know to be there just as easily and with an increase in intellectual fidelity. To claim an exemption to things needing creators would be the Special Pleading fallacy.
What existent materials did your god made everything out of? If the materials didn’t exist, then you’re describing “something from nothing.” If they did exist, then they always existed. Take your pick, because neither works out well for you.
Why is your god so incompetent that it would create humanity with so many biological flaws? And why is it so limited that it can only create life on the only planet in our solar system most likely for life to arise anyway? A truly powerful creator god could create life on Mercury or Pluto as easily as on Earth. Why is your god so weak as to require Easy Mode?
Making these assertions doesn’t prove any of them. It is upon you to demonstrate them, not for science - or me - to disprove what you have failed to prove. Prove your god. Prove it with evidence. Prove it without “faith” and without weak, fallacious, long-debunked apologetics.
For reference, that unfalsifiable proposals cannot be disproved also means they cannot be proved. Things when examined can either be evaluated to be true or not-true. So saying that “you can’t prove me wrong” simply says it cannot be evaluated at all, and is an indictment on your case.
There are things we humans cannot explain, don’t just say “well science” science cannot explain everything. There is ZERO harm in believing in a God. So why not just do so?
There is ZERO harm in believing an invisible unicorn lives in my garage. So why not just do so? When I ask for the city to make laws that will protect the feelings of my unicorn - he’s sensitive to loud sounds - then what could be the harm in that? The neighbors on opposite sides of my house disagree on whether my invisible unicorn is purple or pink, and have armed themselves over this argument. There’s ZERO harm in this. My sister brings her children over to absorb my unicorn’s aura, instead of taking them to the doctor. There’s ZERO harm in this.
Why not just believe in ghosts and goblins and fairies and Bigfoot and aliens and fairies and bunyips and banshees and a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars? Why not believe everything you’re told until it’s disproved? Especially when you’re told that they’re they most existentially important things, such as the risk to your afterlife in Sto-vo-kor if you don’t follow the way of Kahless?
How about we give this a go. I’ll pick a thing, and you just believe it. There’s ZERO harm, so why not just do so?
Are you ready?
Um….. traffic light fairies! Go!
How’d that work out?
Because it’s intellectually lazy and dishonest? It explains literally nothing and prevents you looking for real answers. There are people who actually have the curiosity and persistence to spend their lives learning about the universe in a methodical, worthwhile way. “Goddunit” prevents any further investigation. There is nowhere to go.
Science is a method, not a “thing.” You don’t appear to understand this, and yet still benefit from all the technology, medicine, clean water, comfortable lifestyle with a life expectancy that has been doubled in the last few hundred years. It’s a rather arrogant hypocrisy to rail against the science that gives you the ability ignorantly rail against science on a worldwide stage.
Science is a process for allowing ideas to be proposed, but declined from being regarded as “true” until a rigorous process of hostile examination has tried to test and falsify (disprove) those ideas, demonstrate accurate explanatory and predictive power (i.e. they actually explain something), eliminate subjective biases and bad reasoning, and even then hold them provisionally true, in case they might be subsumed into a larger idea, or a later falsification arises. Which part of this rigorous desire for truth do you find unacceptable?
You cannot claim to solve a mystery by invoking an even greater mystery. You haven’t solved or explained anything.
Lightning could not be explained. Now we can, and it wasn’t your god. Earthquakes could not be explained. Now we can, and it wasn’t your god. Every time we figure something out, it wasn’t your god. You’re backing the losing horse here.
This is nothing but the Argument from Ignorance, the very worst of bad, fallacious reasons to believe anything.
Your god does not win just because you’re incurious, because you don’t understand science.
The existence of your god is upon you to prove, not simply assert that science doesn’t have perfect answers and perfect evidence. Especially when your “solution” provides no answers, and is offered with no evidence at all.
Isn’t “because it hasn’t been shown to be true” not enough? Seriously, why is it that being actually true is not a higher priority?
Does it even matter which god? Ra? Quetzalcoatl? Kahless? Are the results in any way distinguishable? Doesn’t every religion claim to be the Truth™ and get results bestowed upon them by their respective god(s)?
No harm, eh? Belief in a god has death toll. Of course there’s no harm, if you can’t value human life.
