Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics(the question of odds)

A very common argument creationists make is the one of odds. Do you know what the odds of this happening are?
Well, the odds of it happening if they think you are "undecided" or less educated than they are are 1:1 - it is their standard go-to argument.
I have many complaints about this.

First, the odds are usually false, or pulled completely out of thin air. The odds of a cell forming randomly out of nothing are the same as a hurricane assembling a perfectly functional 747 out of random metal scraps it picks up off the beach.

This is typical oversimplification. A related tactic is to compare evolution to saying "we came from goo" or "from a monkey". Or to say "one day a monkey gave birth to a human".

The fundamental problem with BOTH of these claims is that they demonstrate nothing more than a serious lack of understanding.

I of course could attempt to educate you here but I suspect that the main people who will read this blog are people who know me and people on the far end of either side of the "debate"- in which case you either already know or don't care to educate yourself. Or a strange combination of the two.

I will instead delve into the(perceived) reasoning behind such arguments.

The main reason these arguments come about is because someone leading the masses makes them up. Most, if not all of the arguments of creationism are not original, but come from a single source and are endlessly repeated over and over again by followers that say "wow that sounds really good! I'm going to use that! That will stump those Atheists!" - which brings me to the point and main flaw behind creationism.
It is the same problem we get when a horrible travesty occurs and everyone overwhelmingly and unequivocally takes ONE SIDE of an argument. This is illustrated here.
The idea is this(if you didn't click the link above)- someone does something really horrible and everyone else in the world judges them for it. Everyone takes part in the judging because it makes them feel superior and because they need someone to be better, or smarter, or more morally sound than. They have to be RIGHT.
The need to be right is very strong within people. It's strong within me, and within you- and within your dear old grandmother sitting at home knitting and watching jeopardy.
This is the reason why, to me, Christians seem insincere. It is the reason the Pro-choice argument seems less than genuous and the right-wing seems to be full of falsehoods.
It seems that they don't believe their own arguments to some, but I sense a deeper, darker moral problem in society. The cancer of superiority.

The idea is this. If you believed that Hell was a real place, that the unsaved would go there after death and be tortured for all eternity never to see the light of god or their families again- and that there was ANY chance that people you knew, or even people you CARED ABOUT might have to go there to suffer for eternity and you would never see them unless they believed your story or went through a baptism or whatever criteria you believed was required for them to avoid this fate- what would you do?
I for one would be in a crazed-terror state that robbed me of the ability to do anything productive until I brought these people to salvation. And in my mind salvation it would be.
Have you seen the movies where people risk their lives, their jobs and the lives of possibly someone they care about to save many people? Or to warn someone about an impending doom? People that would stop at nothing to save the world or the country or whatever group of people they happened to be with from the utter annihilation they were most certainly faced with?

Why so, do Christians do this? Why do they resign themselves? They might make a fuss when they find out the first time but if they see the train coming why don't they tackle you to make you get out of the way? And why get so angry at people who don't believe? Even to go so far as to wish death upon them? I would hold them safe in a room with no sharp bits or dangerous things nearby until I could talk them into safety. I would do this with everyone.

The reason is that they aren't sure. They strongly believe, but they are not completely sure. The seeds of doubt are in all of them(all of the ones who don't follow you home) and they are simply not sure if they have the right answer. They think the train tracks you've built your home on are still active but they're not ready to set fire to your house to smoke you out of it because they just aren't sure.

Similarly with pro-choice- if you even suspected a child was going to be killed somewhere and you knew where? I would very literally commit crimes much worse than that of the nutjob who murdered George Tiller in front of his family. But the thing is- that man was absolutely sure. Absolutely sure he was killing babies. Obviously I don't condone it or anything like it(and am vehemently opposed.. I'll post about it later.) but I do know that he was one of the few anti-abortionists who did not see a distinction between children born or unborn, and believed that the life of the mother was less sacrosanct than the life of the child.

But Christians and other pro-lifers are very happy to just call you a baby-killer. I mean, nothing they have ever done is as bad as killing babies. They are happy to condemn you and even vandalize your practice- but no one of them would actually do something to put a stop to it, especially if one of their own lives were in danger.

The same thing with hell. Christians, generally older Christians who have had their fill of arguing with atheists and uppity kids, will calmly tell you that they are praying for you- or that "you'll see" at the end, that they were right.

Would they really be so happy to just let you die and burn forever? Could you be happy in a heaven when you knew people were suffering for eternity?

Which brings me back to creationism(remember the original topic?). The main idea of creationism is that people want to be right about something. They want to be right about the bible and genesis so bad that they are willing to lie about it. They are willing to mine quotes, make up statistics and attempt to debunk rational science with fallacious arguments that they are unwilling to see as fallacious because that would admit that one of the fundamental tenants of their faith might be wrong. And some of the worst embarrassment in the world comes from being wrong.

My stereotypical opinion on gay marriage(Ban it along with all the rest of marriages.)

What? Every atheist blog has to have a post about gay marriage?
Fine. I guess. Here goes.
But I'm not doing the legwork! I'm going to just repost a comment thread I started from The Religious Researcher instead.
This is the post.

I respond

Your arguments are constructed well for a person who operates within the framework of Christianity, however I would like to ask what you think of policy?

Why can’t we just say:
Marriage is a binary contract, between two previously unrelated individuals, for the purpose of creating a relation between them.

Extend rights to support and help EVERYONE in your family, regardless of actual relation as long as it’s within 2(as in, I can buy insurance for my sister and her child since I support them and I can claim them as dependents, and could even adopt my nephew and claim legal rights to him if my sister agrees) which would help everyone get what they needed out of marriage.

This provides for the common good, as in one person who needs to support someone else they love(or are obligated to) extends currently only to spouses and children/grandchildren.

The only reason you shouldn’t be allowed then, to marry your sister, is because a relationship already exists.

The reason I say this is because someone who is going to have gay sex, participate in incest, live a polygamous lifestyle, so on, is going to do it REGARDLESS of legal status, whether they are married to that person or not. Allowing anyone to form a relationship with anyone will remove any possible barriers to people creating legally recognized relationships with people, and does not necessarily mean there is a sexual relationship. For instance I could marry a friend of mine in order to help her get insurance for her child or to take care of her if she had a long-term illness where she was not fully coherent, and did not want her parents to enforce their wishes(like, keeping her on/off life support against her wishes), or to jointly own property between us.

The fact is that these days there are more relationships that need to be legally recognized and enforced and taken into account in court than just “parent and child” and “husband and wife”.

Now you will argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman in legality what it is in the bible, a spiritual relationship for the purpose of childbearing, and that taking that away removes the specialness of it, so on.
While it would be great if only people who were truly in love and people only got married to have kids and everyone had one mommy and one daddy, we live in the real world.
In the real world, we have 55 hour marriages, we have seniors getting married who are infertile, we have shotgun weddings of 16 year-olds who then divorce at 19 and fight for the rest of their lives over the illegitimate children. We have spousal abuse, adultery, battered wife syndrome, golddiggers, people who get married because they are terrified of dying alone, and spousal murder to get out of a messy, costly divorce.

What would me amenable to everyone, regardless of beliefs(as again, we live in the real world where not everyone is Christian and we can’t force them to become so) is if the word “Marriage” was reserved for something recognized by the CHURCH, and civil unions were available to everyone legally recognized as a sentient being, anyone who holds rights can establish a relationship with anyone they don’t already have one with for the purpose of supporting and sharing resources.

He responds

Icy,
The debate over gay marriage is not just about sex. It is about whether we as a society will agree to abandon the belief that the institution of a one-woman, one-man permanent union (called marriage) is a foundational institution for society. Redefining marriage to mean any newly created relationship between two persons is about as arbitrary a redefinition as I can imagine.

Most of your examples of “the real world” are viewed by most people, including most Christians, as also immoral. Bringing up such things as golddiggers and spousal murderers is totally irrelevant to the state’s role in sanctioning marriage. The state can legitimately deny persons the right to marry someone of the same gender, or multiple persons of the opposite gender, etc., even though it cannot prevent people from getting married for less than honorable reasons.

Your example of infertile seniors getting married is also irrelevant. I have not claimed, nor would I, that persons cannot marry unless they have the potential and intention of producing offspring.

I respond

But we arbitrarily redefine marriage, among other things, all the time!

Women: Not property
Interracial marriage: OK
Divorce for a good reason: OK
Divorce for no good reason: Also OK

And that’s just marriage.

But my point is that your argument is faith based. While this is PERFECTLY FINE for your own morals, what you teach your children and to talk about on Sunday or here on your own blog(not really here to change your mind, just challenge it) it’s not really sound for policy.
I’m not sure what the foundational institution for society is, because there are several important words you have to intricately define before you claim what it’s foundations are.

What society? Western society? If so, what kind? Capitalist?

For sake of argument, since we live in here in America and are talking about such, we’ll use our present set of circumstances.

There are plenty of people for whom marriage is not an option, nor is it a desired one. I’m not talking about people who can’t seem to stick to one partner, but people who pursue their careers(not just for money, but doctors and politicians), love to travel too much(ever met an old biker?) or are simply celibate. Catholic priests, for instance are never to be married, at least not to a woman(Married to God I hear quite a bit from them) as are nuns. Are these people just as responsible for destroying society?

Yes, there are not as many of them as there are gays or other people who might wish to marry someone other than a person of the opposite sex for whatever reason, but the number of these people when compared to the population at large is also insignificant(the word insignificant used mathematically in this case).

But here is a case that I think would satisfy your needs.

Government should abolish marriage altogether, as there are no benefits a infertle one man one woman marriage can provide that a gay union can’t(we’re going to go by current research done by independent researchers here) and thusly the benefits should be nullified.
Civil Unions should be the only recognized form(the ‘arbitrary’ definition used earlier for marriage will do) of legal union that can artificially create a legal relationship between two humans.
Marriage, as it originated in the Church, should be controlled by the Church. Anyone wishing to have a marriage in the eyes of God can do so using their own faith community, and it can be settled there, between the couple and God.

This eliminates the need for secularists to complain about the separation of church and state, eliminates the protest of unfairness by exclusion by homosexuals, and puts full control back in local, community churches where pastors can counsel couples to make sure they are ready, and it can be a family event, bringing back the sanctity and morality of marriage without the need to make accommodations for people who are not part of whichever community performing the ceremony.

This is the primary reason behind the separation of church and state. The state should form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens of the United States Of America. It doesn’t NEED to be an extension of the church, the church itself can take care of that. People who aren’t going to follow it weren’t going to in the first place, let them go their own way.

These were made in the span of about a day, so he did not respond (I assume he had other blog posts to get to.)