Religion is a Mental Illness

Aka believers rehearsing the bad reasons why they believe.

Wow, they just come right out and say it, without any irony, self-consciousness or awareness of cult-qualifying characteristics.

In a world of instant Google results, how else would they be able to enforce ignorance, denial and compliance?

Always ask.

As a young earth creationist, I agree. Always ask. Because there IS evidence.

Name one piece.

… that isn’t your scientific ignorance. And doesn’t come from Ken Ham or other science-illiterate creationist snake oil salesmen of his ilk. Actual scientific evidence, please. The type we can verify.

Name your best one.

I like too ask a question beyond birth from our parents tell me where man kind started like and old question old school what came first the chicken or the egg

there only one book that will boldly clam it made us where is your scientist bold clam 

The egg came first. We already know this, even if you don’t.

There’s multiple books that claim they know the origin of humanity, and that it came from magic. The Bible, the Quran, the Codex Regius, the Book of Mormon, the Popol Vuh and the Denkard.

There’s also a TV show that explores the origin of all humanoid species in the galaxy, including humanity, as being derived from a single humanoid species that seeded the primordial soup of many worlds with their genetic material. Prove it wrong. Doesn’t that explain everything you need to know about where mankind came from?

You have a book. Good for you. Have you even read it all the way through? Why should we take its word on the origin of humanity when it doesn’t know the where the sun goes at night, that the Earth is not flat, or that its guess at the age of the universe is about 0.0000375% of the actual answer? A book that claims that humanity is descended from multiple bouts of incest? And I see that you’re just going to conveniently disregard the scientific evidence I linked above that says otherwise without offering anything of any value.

I have a book that says wizards and dragons are real. I have another book that says a flying man from another planet is real. I have one that says an orange circle with wiggly lines can wear a hat. You don’t really understand what books are, do you?

Your book is just a book. It’s words on a page written by human people who thought slavery was neat. It “borrows” myths from the Egyptians, Sumerians and others, which are then edited, added to many years later, inserts more stories years after their purported occurence, edited again, translated, edited, translated, translated, and so on. Do you literally not even know the origin of this book you’re such a fan of? Do you not, for example, know that the myth of The Flood is just a version of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Your book is just a book.

I know where humanity originated from. Clarence the Invisible Purple Unicorn created us. Prove it wrong.

What, did you think that your answer wins by default? Do you think merely having an answer, no matter how baseless or intellectually dishonest it is, is better than the honest answer of “I don’t know, let’s try and find out”?

Except that we did find out:

Again, your ignorance is not a reason your myths are “true”.

Your book is just a book. And not even a very good one.

Why do creationists have to prove themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt, when you yourselves cannot?

Uh…… because it’s not my claim.

I don’t have to debunk what has not been proven. The Burden of Proof is yours. That you don’t like it is your problem, not mine.

As someone pretending to understand science, that’s something you should probably already have known. But clearly didn’t.

I gave multiple scientific explorations and discoveries supporting a planet and universe far older than creationist nonsense proposes.

You debunked none of it, and you provided no evidence supporting your own claims. The “beyond a shadow of a doubt” quip is either smoke and mirrors or an outright deception intended to disguise the fact you provided nothing at all.

#TimeWastingTroll

I’m not a scientific expert by any means, but I honestly believe there is evidence. If anyone who is genuinely interested in the topic, then www.creation.com would be worth a look. For example, what about the find of DNA in dinosaur bones? There’s no way DNA could last that long. On creation.com, there’s the records of a study where there was carbon-14 in dinosaur bones. There’s theological articles, answering questions (and satisfactorily, to my mind) such as “why do bad things happen?” and others. I’m not saying that I definitely have the right answer. But I’m asking you, please, don’t just dismiss it because you if I’m right, that means you were wrong.

Which isn’t your fault. It’s just an interpretation of the facts. If I’m right, then you’ve just had the bad luck to have been fed the wrong facts. If I’m wrong, then it’s the inverse. I’m not saying I’m unbiased, everyone has a bias. But I’m asking you to try and form your own interpretation of the facts.

And also, just because the Bible contains instances of murder and other things, doesn’t mean it condones it. Please don’t make that mistake. (And, by the way, I have read through the entire Bible, and I am currently reading it through for a second time.)

If you have any specific questions, not just “prove that creation is correct so I can prove you wrong,” then I would gladly help. (This goes to any of my followers, by the way; I love sorting through evidence to find the right answer.) If I haven’t countered a specific point, forgive me. I’d like to go more in-depth into any topic you’d like, but only so long as you try your best to keep an open mind. I’ll do the same. I’m aware that you’ll probably just shoot me down again, but I hope I’ve helped at least one person. My ask box is always open.

There is literally nothing scientific or evidence-based at creation.com. There are no artefacts, there’s no genome mapping, there’s nothing but reading the bible and trying to make it fit.

It’s a religious propaganda site, historically originated by Ken Ham (you know, the guy who says no amount of evidence could ever change his mind) and Answers in Genesis, promoting fallacies and misrepresentations of evolution, scientific principles and attempting to massage ancient scripture written by people who don’t know where the sun went at night into some kind of explanation. You know, once the scientific process has already figured out the reality, trying to pretend their dogma is the right answer.

(BTW, the organization behind creation.com also publishes “Alien Intrusion, UFOs and the Evolution Connection” but I’m guessing you’d prefer to skip over that...)

If the bible is open to interpretation, then there is no evidence in it. It’s a book of claims. Nothing outside the bible substantiates the claims within.

So, do not lecture me about “evidence”.

We already know the universe is billions of years old. We already know the Garden of Eden did not exist. We already know snakes and donkeys can’t talk. We know all of this. And yet your book insists this is true.

Actually, it does. I don’t believe you when you say you’ve read it and are reading it again. Literally. I do not believe you. I call bullshit. These things are right there in the book.

Under what basis are we to continue humoring this stupid, immoral, scientifically inaccurate book of horrors?

Using only the bible as a source, with presupposing the existence of the god creature they’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate in the first place. That just demonstrates your credulity. How can something be answered satisfactorily when they can’t or won’t produce the entity they’ve convinced you is the answer? You can’t claim your god as the “answer” when you can’t - and haven’t - prove it even exists.

A book so abjectly immoral, depicting all manner of despicable acts as completely justified... you think that this book is the one that, despite getting human morality completely wrong, gets human origin completely right?

Creation.com is well known for being bullshit and scientifically illiterate. There are no facts there. For starters, it’s based only on Xtian mythology and filled with Argument from Ignorance nonsense that concludes with “must be god” in order to circle back to their pre-suppositionalism. Never Zeus, never Quetzalcoatl, never Shiva. The conclusion can only be one specific god they can’t even demonstrate exists at all.

You dishonestly portray this false impression of “open-mindedness” and “genuine” enquiry, yet you promote ONLY a website whose only conclusion is “must be god” with no regard for non-god options, or for any non-Xtian god option for that manner.

You’ve already dismissed all scientific evidence, despite not being a scientist qualified to do so, because you don’t understand it, in preference for an “explanation” based on magic and feelings. This is the very definition of closed-minded, and the same insidious intellectual dishonesty and unctuousness that gave us “teach the controversy!” and “let’s hear both sides in science class!”

No reputable, scientific organisation supports anything those nuts say. Here’s a list of qualified scientists named “Steve” that say the evolutionary model is the correct one. A list of Steves that is longer than every pseudo-scientist Creation.com claims disagrees with evolution and supports creation.

You and I have very different definitions of the word “fact.” (It sure sounds like you think gravity is just an opinion, BTW.) Mine have been substantiated. Yours are just claims assembled from a book that can be manipulated into saying anything, and have no support outside of the parties that make the claims in the first place. They haven’t been confirmed by unbiased peers, they haven’t survived testing, and they have no material evidence.

Of course you’re not. You demonstrated that very well, making it clear you’re a creationist apologist who doesn’t even care whether your beliefs are well supported, nor understand the processes around accurately and honestly figuring things out. Such as starting with the evidence and figuring out and testing explanations, rather than starting with the explanations and trying to find evidence.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

You’re unable to believe this, yet you’re able to believe in an invisible, intangible, omniscient, magical ghost in the clouds who is concerned with how people use their genitals, involved in the outcomes of football games and availability of parking spaces, but neglects people starving in the desert. All this proves is that you’re injudicious about your beliefs. And irrational and inconsistent about how you address circumstances where reality collides with your preference.

Your ignorance is not evidence of a magical man in the sky. If you’re not a scientist, by your own admission, how can you even claim to be able to disregard all the DNA evidence? This is just more intellectual dishonesty from you. No. That’s not it at all. It’s not intellectual dishonesty - I’m going to call it what it is: outright dishonesty. You are a dishonest person.

Yes, it appears you do. Picking and choosing and ignoring and misinterpreting and misunderstanding all sorts of things to try and fit a conclusion you’ve already decided upon. A conclusion chosen for comfort. With no regard for all the things that demonstrate your pre-supposed conclusion is completely false.

The only intellectually honest approach is to start with a blank slate, without religious pre-suppositionalism, gather all the evidence together - including all the evidence you don’t understand, don’t like and that debunks the magical conclusions you prefer - filter out the “evidence” that cannot be verified or substantiated, eliminate the fallacious reasoning, and identify what explains all of it. This, by the way, is the scientific approach.

But you won’t do that. Because it hurts your feelings and means you were wrong. It makes you feel icky inside and takes away the comfort your myths give you, that false sense of superiority and the smugness you feel that not just believing in but insisting on magical superstitions makes you more “open-minded” than someone who is willing to consider any idea - as long as it is substantiated and corroborated. And this is the problem with you and people like you.

All of this said, I do encourage others to read that site. For excellent examples of bad logic, fallacies, mental gymnastics and irrationality. Just as reading the bible is the best way to become an atheist, reading pseudoscientific bullshit like Creation.com helps you understand and appreciate the value of the scientific process much better, and understand how lunatics such as this person, with their ingratiating close-minded fascade of open-mindedness, exist.

All it would take.

This 👆 just makes me ask how stupid, blind and closed minded are you, evidence is in Everywhere you just need to look harder and open that damn mind. I was born to the religious family and this is just uuugh come on.

Ah, the “look around you” argument. Indeed, I look around and see evidence of Quetzalcoatl, the Great Feathered Serpent. All undeniable evidence of his grand creation.

What, did you think something as vague and worthless as “look around you” would substantiate your specific magical sky elf, out of the 3000 or so humanity has invented? When it also can be used as evidence of Hunab Ku, Odin, Atum and Brahma? Not to mention the Invisible Pink World-Creating Unicorn, and the Aesthetically-Minded Inter-Dimensional Aliens with a World-Creating Machine?

Okay, let’s talk about what we see when we look around us. Let’s talk about worms that burrow into a child’s eye, eating it from the inside out. Let’s talk about malaria, ebola and AIDS. Let’s talk about bushes that make you want to kill yourself. Let’s talk about leukaemia. Let’s talk about a planet which is 70% uninhabitable to us, in a universe we cannot survive in that is best equipped for the formation of black holes and explosions.

Just because you don’t really comprehend the natural world around you doesn’t mean you get to insert your magic Sky Santa superstitions.

People used to attribute lightning to “god”. People used to attribute earthquakes to “god”. People used to attribute the Aurora Borealis to “god”. And then we figured out that it wasn’t. The difference now is that we know a TON about how the planet, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe work, and we have methods for accurately figuring out the things we don’t know - you are using, surrounded by and dependent upon devices and facilities that only exist because of those methods - so there is simply no excuse for your ignorance.

It’s also demonstrably dishonest of you to claim an “open mind” when you’re literally trying to insist on your specific answer - one which provides absolutely no answers. It doesn’t tell us how those aesthetic choices were made, or the mechanisms by which the resulting phenomena were created. It doesn’t tell us anything at all, just attempts to hide it away, while demanding undeserved reverence, like the Wizard of Oz.

You are not open-minded because you have no interest in exploring the notion of not-god. You know the answer. The one and only answer you will accept. Without any substantiation. An answer that billions of people say is wrong.

You are, by definition, the one with the closed mind, not even interested in or curious about the natural answers we can explore, only insisting one specific, unverifiable, unfalsifiable magical claim. Believing things without evidence or any good reason is gullibility. And that’s nothing to be proud of.

Maybe learn what an open mind actually is.

P.S. You still owe me some tangible, verifiable evidence that uniquely identifies your particular god - whichever that one might happen to be.

You are dismissed.

Does prayer work or does prayer not work?  Do you have faith or do you not have faith?

@edrazeba @ajblues7713 lol it’s pointless to talk to people who choose to be small minded and already have a set belief. Poor you guys.

The problem for you is that you are demonstrably the small-minded one. You’ve already decided that you know the answers to questions that humanity has struggled with for millennia, and yet you have literally no evidence to support those answers.

On the other hand, atheists will believe anything - literally anything, no matter how wacky, how unlikely, how hard to believe - as long as there is good supporting evidence that proves the claim is demonstrably “true.” It’s not “open-minded” to believe anything without good reason. That just makes you gullible and indoctrinated. That’s not anything to be proud of.

You are the small-minded one because out of the thousands of magical sky god superstitions, you claim, without no warrant, to know which (if any) of them is “correct.” Just like everybody in every other religion claims.

You are closed to the possibility that you are wrong. You are closed to the possibility of any other ideas. You’re closed to discovering truth. This is particularly obvious given the clear evidence that demonstrates that intercessory prayer is ineffective. You are the one with the “set belief” because you’re already trying to formulate a way to ignore and disregard that evidence (let’s face it, you are). If you weren’t “small-minded,” you’d take that knowledge and change your beliefs to accommodate that better understanding of the world you’ve just acquired. But you won’t do that.

And, statistically, you’re more likely to be wrong than right; every single religion on the planet has more people that disbelieve it than believe it; every religion is a minority viewpoint with insufficient evidence to unequivocally demonstrate it is the One True™ belief and wipe out all doubt and disbelief.

What would actually convince you that you are wrong? What would falsify your god? Anything at all? If your god cannot be falsified, then you are the one with the immutable, set, closed beliefs. You would be the one adamantly insisting the lightning really is from the magical man in the sky, and any other idea, such as natural meteorological phenomenon, was just “small-minded.” You really just seem to be projecting here, trying to convince yourself because you don’t know how to handle a world where the specific things you were indoctrinated to think are not true.

So, you believe things without good reason, and in spite of good reasons not to, and your mind cannot be changed. You are the close-minded one. And you’re too close-minded to see that you’re trapped in a prison of your own making, while thinking people who aren’t stuck in your tiny little confirmation bubble have something wrong with them. Thank you for publicly demonstrating that.

But sure. We’re “small-minded” to not blindly, uncritically believe what you say, without evidence, and in contradiction to the evidence that does exist. Meanwhile, you still don’t have enough faith to prove you’re correct (i.e. the original meme). This really puts you in an awkward position, between a rock and a crazy place.