We make no apologies that we start from the position that the Bible is the history book of the universe. Yes, we have assumptions and presuppositions, such as the Bible is God’s Word and, because it was written by a perfect God, it is perfectly true and reliable. But secularists also have assumptions and presuppositions! They assume that life arose naturalistically, that supernatural explanations are not possible, that the universe is billions of years old, and that God does not exist. This is a religion! A religion of purposeless, meaningless, naturalistic atheism.
34 comments
No, Ken. You don't get to throw the steaming shit that is your baseless and often blatantly wrong belief system all over the finery of our evidenced and reasonable conclusions simply because you can't debate them as they are.
"A religion of atheism". What a stupid twat.
Just because you don't (want to) understand their reasons for thinking these things doesn't make them "assumptions and presuppositions", Ken.
And even if "secularism" would have these assumptions, just because your religion makes assumptions does not mean that anything that makes assumptions is a religion.
When the supernatural can be shown to happen scientists will start looking at the supernatural. Problem is its not shown to happen.
Yes everyone has presumptions the difference is real scientists know their presumptions could be wrong, people like Ken believe their presumption can never be wrong. That is a huge difference.
They assume that life arose naturalistically, that supernatural explanations are not possible, that the universe is billions of years old, and that God does not exist.
The first and third are not assumptions but demonstrable, externally verifiable factors taken in account when explaining the world. As for the second, supernatural explanations may be possible, but that does not mean that they are correct or even useful, especially without evidence. As for the fourth, the existence of God is every bit as much of an assumption as his non-existence; so avoid both unless you are prepared to demonstrate your conclusions with evidence one way or the other, particularly if you wish to define God in the very specific way demanded by Christian fundamentalism.
the Bible is God’s Word and, because it was written by a perfect God, it is perfectly true and reliable.
And it says so right there in the bible. This argument is so perfectly circular that scientists use it to calibrate their instruments.
Its probably good to keep in mind that most normal christians think this bible literalisim about creation is as stupid as we do. I've seen organised formal debates on you-tube between creationists and normal christians, and the normal people just wipe the floor with them and make them look just as insane and/or stupid as if Bill Nye was doing it.
For an all intelligent god, he sure misunderstands how photosynthesis works...and that's right on the first page. I tried to find an index, table of contents, or a purpose statement, but this book lacked all of that.
As a Technical Writing piece, your book gets a big fucking F. How divine?
While Ray Comfort is a conniving and deceitful huckster of virtual snake oil, Ken Ham is actually crippled in the thought department. I don't think there is any ulterior motive, just stupidity, when he asserts that the rejection of a principle is equivalent to fully embracing the diametrically opposing principle.
"They assume that life arose naturalistically"
- Why yes Ken. Here's the basis: we know that nature and natural processes exist. We know that at some point, life arose. We do not have any precedent for magic that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. As it happens, if life were to be magically conjured in the modern day, this presupposition would be abandoned by intellectually honest people.
"that supernatural explanations are not possible"
- This isn't an assumption, it's pattern recognition. Every proposed bit of magic ever has been either debunked or withheld from examination.
"that the universe is billions of years old"
- Christian scientists determined this by observation and mathematics, and this model is continually upheld because it keeps making accurate predictions. Seriously, this right here could easily qualify for CSTDT, and is a staple of modern creationism.
"God does not exist"
- I arrived at this null hypothesis based on skeptical philosophy, not on any science, although what I have learned of science since then has only refuted the ideas I once held.
Ken, quit projecting.
It isn't an assumption to doubt the existence of something that hasn't been shown to exist.
is it an assumption that leprechauns don't exist?
Is the disbelief in Zeus a religion?
Who am I kidding? I'm trying to reason with a man who thinks that unicorns were real because the Bible says so.
"But secularists also have assumptions and presuppositions! They assume that blah blah blah . . . "
No, we assume the universe really exists and can be studied. We did no assume the age of the universe the way you did, we actually measured it.
@Zoé Selardi:
"It always surprises me how fundies often have no fucking idea of what a religion is. "
They know very well what religion is. It's just that they have no fucking idea what science is. The think it's an evil mirror image of their religion.
"it was written by a perfect God"
No it wasn't. It' plainly evident to see from the scripture itself that it was written by men, flawed men at that. It's the only way to explain the contradictions, misogyny and plain batshitedness.
We accept that life arose naturally...because there is EVIDENCE.
We accept that supernatural explanations are not possible...because there IS NO EVIDENCE the supernatural exists.
We accept that the universe is billions of years old...because there is EVIDENCE.
WE accept that god does not exist...because there IS NO EVIDENCE.
Your "holy book" is no more evidence that your god exists than the Quran is evidence that Allah exists, or that Harry Potter books are evidence that Harry Potter exists. Your claiming your "holy book" is "perfect and true" does not make it so, any more than claiming the Quran is "perfect and true" or claiming Harry Potter books are "perfect and true". Asserting something is "perfect and true" does not make it so when there is no evidence. Where is the evidence that your specific "holy book" is "perfect and true" and all of the others are wrong? And no, you don't get to say "in the bible".
Short version: "We make no apologies for being gullible idiots."
@Shodan: Actually Hambone does get the distinction - he just considers it a noble and pious act to deliberately turn off his brain. I've been to his Cretin Museum, and they state this explicitly and proudly.
We make no apologies that we start from the position that the Bible is the history book of the universe.
You should make apologies, because you're totally doing science and history wrong, and looking like babbling idiots in the process.
"Supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. In order for a narrative to have any explanatory power applying to the material, causality-driven, observable universe, then it has to take place entirely within that same universe.
Presupposition that the bible is god's word (presupposing that a god ever existed, of course) is NOT A SMALL MATTER, Ken, so don't gloss over it that fast. That is the "what if" upon which ALL the rest of your religion hangs! Your entire life's work, that of millions of others, billions of adherents over the centuries (some bullies, some being bullied), dozens of armed conflicts, countless thousands of deaths, and more trillions of dollars than Croesus could imagine .... All of it, ALL of it, hinges on that "what if". What a fragile thread!
If a scientist presupposes something, sooner or later he will have to prove it. Don't you think it's time for the religious to put up or shut up?
Atheism can also refer to the lack of a belief in a deity rather than the belief in the lack of a deity.
Similarly, secularism is the lack of a religion.
That's more subtle.
You believe in truth, we believe in knowledge. Knowledge means studying reality in order to be less wrong every discover we make. There is no scientific truth. There are only hypothesis, that we are trying to improve, to have a more accurate vision of the reality.
And never, in that quest for knowledge, has the hypothesis for God been useful. It is therefore ignored. If one day it proves useful, the scientific knowledge will be happy to welcome it. Right now, not.
"SAME OLD SHIT!"
Which is why many have stopped debating them, Bill Nye will probably refuse a redo, if you debate Ham, Hovind, Craig, most the creationist apologists you'll get the same argument everytime. The same exact sermons. Just like church.
They don't debate, they hold court and lecture with the same material each time, they answer no questions, provide no evidences yet arrogantly claim equal footing with science.
We don't have assumptions and presuppositions, we go where the evidence goes.
You go in the opposite direction, that's why you have assumptions and presuppositions.
We say that supernatural explanations are neither measurable nor verifiable, and therefore useless.
We say that there is no evidence for the existence of ANY gods or goddesses.
We say that fairy-tales lost their appeal around the age of ten, you apparently missed that stage in your development.
@ Mister Spak
*Tips hat*
I concede your point ;)
"A religion of purposeless, meaningless, naturalistic atheism."
ATHEISM! IS! NOT! A! FUCKING! RELIGION! YOU! FUCKING! RETARD!
image
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.