How atheists often misunderstand and misuse the theory of evolution

[Night FM]

These are some of my observations:

1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools. (Meaning if they had been born in the Middle Ages, they would be believing whatever the Church had taught them about the origins of humanity). Most aren't evolutionary biologists, and certainly never would have discovered the theory themselves from scratch - they're simply "fans" of the theory because they think it "means" something to them, or because they're attached to whatever they've been taught. Or perhaps they erroneously believe that it supports their atheistic stance (when, in reality, it doesn't, since evolution isn't mutually exclusive to creation, such as how supercomputers created by man "evolved" from simple calculators. Though some may use evolution to counter Biblical literalism).

2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin. It dates as far back as the earliest of ancient Greek philosophers, just as materialist philosophy is also ancient (e.x. Epicurus was an early materialist). The belief that mankind simply originated "from nature" with no further explanation needed has been a common belief that has been held over the ages, and is arguably a simple observation which anyone could make even without pre-existing theories of evolution, given that the physical similarities between people and other animals are easily observable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical (and has more in common with the Greek myth of "Chaos" being the deity from which the universe originated). In science, chaos, to my knowledge, only has meaning within Chaos theory, which, also to my knowledge, has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe.

Another example is when people say that life evolved through "random chance". They erroneously use this to imply there is "no intent" (whatever that means) behind life's origin, when in reality "randomness" simply refers to things outside of the evolutionary process playing a role in the development of life (such as how Chomsky attributes the development of language to a "miraculous mutation"), which, of course, does not require a lack of intent (and if anything could very well imply one).

Some also use evolution to advocate for "aggressive competition", when I'd argue that biology is primarily cooperative, and more or less debunks this notion. (Such as how organs within the human body are not only viewable as "individual organs", but are collectives comprised of living cells, and for the body to function, the life of individual cells is far less important than the life of the whole organ). So I'd argue that biology and evolution more or less debunk individualism and render it either a pseudoscientific concept, beyond the fact that the organs need their autonomy for the entire body to function. (The existence of aggressive competition could therefore be seen as a defect, similarly to if an organ became cancerous and posed a threat to the wellbeing of the entire body).

4. Atheists often refer to people as "animals, apes", etc in a way which is intentionally or unintentionally reductive and devaluates the human condition to the level of animalistic behaviors associated with those less complex animals. (Such as the pursuit of materalistic needs which are low on Maslow's hierarchy compared to higher human needs). In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences. (Much as how you could classify both a calculator and a supercomputer as a "calculating machine" based on a shared function, but the differences between those two devices would be striking, regardless of how they're mutually classified).

Edited September 27 by Night FM

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

These are some of my observations:

1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools. (Meaning if they had been born in the Middle Ages, they would be believing whatever the Church had taught them about the origins of humanity). Most aren't evolutionary biologists, and certainly never would have discovered the theory themselves from scratch - they're simply "fans" of the theory because they think it "means" something to them, or because they're attached to whatever they've been taught. Or perhaps they erroneously believe that it supports their atheistic stance (when, in reality, it doesn't, since evolution isn't mutually exclusive to creation, such as how supercomputers created by man "evolved" from simple calculators. Though some may use evolution to counter Biblical literalism).

2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin. It dates as far back as the earliest of ancient Greek philosophers, just as materialist philosophy is also ancient (e.x. Epicurus was an early materialist). The belief that mankind simply originated "from nature" with no further explanation needed has been a common belief that has been held over the ages, and is arguably a simple observation which anyone could make even without pre-existing theories of evolution, given that the physical similarities between people and other animals are easily observable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical (and has more in common with the Greek myth of "Chaos" being the deity from which the universe originated). In science, chaos, to my knowledge, only has meaning within Chaos theory, which, also to my knowledge, has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe.

Another example is when people say that life evolved through "random chance". They erroneously use this to imply there is "no intent" (whatever that means) behind life's origin, when in reality "randomness" simply refers to things outside of the evolutionary process playing a role in the development of life (such as how Chomsky attributes the development of language to a "miraculous mutation"), which, of course, does not require a lack of intent (and if anything could very well imply one).

Some also use evolution to advocate for "aggressive competition", when I'd argue that biology is primarily cooperative, and more or less debunks this notion. (Such as how organs within the human body are not only viewable as "individual organs", but are collectives comprised of living cells, and for the body to function, the life of individual cells is far less important than the life of the whole organ). So I'd argue that biology and evolution more or less debunk individualism and render it either a pseudoscientific concept, beyond the fact that the organs need their autonomy for the entire body to function. (The existence of aggressive competition could therefore be seen as a defect, similarly to if an organ became cancerous and posed a threat to the wellbeing of the entire body).

4. Atheists often refer to people as "animals, apes", etc in a way which is intentionally or unintentionally reductive and devaluates the human condition to the level of animalistic behaviors associated with those less complex animals. (Such as the pursuit of materalistic needs which are low on Maslow's hierarchy compared to higher human needs). In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences. (Much as how you could classify both a calculator and a supercomputer as a "calculating machine" based on a shared function, but the differences between those two devices would be striking, regardless of how they're mutually classified).

All this from a person who claims clades are arbitrary........ 

"Random chance", in my experience, is a phrase used by creationists attempting to ridicule the theory of evolution. I note also the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution, which is an error (or sometimes a deliberate rhetorical ploy) characteristic of creationists. Similarly, the notion of "aggressive competition" is one beloved of creationists, rather than people who understand the science. (The only "competition" in the theory is in the sense of relative reproductive success - there's nothing "aggressive" about it.)

So we seem to have a string of Aunt Sallys here, being projected onto "atheists" but in fact based around what creationists wrongly claim the theory of evolution says. Last time I checked, most creationists are not atheists.  

And the projection continues. No one who understands the science thinks the universe arose from "chaos". Quite the opposite in fact, in terms of entropy at least. Chaos, again, is a term creationists like, as it fits the biblical account in Genesis. 

There seems to be also an attempt to  elide acceptance of the theory of evolution with "atheism". This is something we often see from certain types of biblical literalist (i.e. stupid) Protestant, who are ignorant not only of science but of their own religion as well. In fact, the major western Christian denominations are perfectly happy to accept the science of evolution.

And finally we have the ridiculous idea that "atheists" accept science merely out of loyalty to a preconceived worldview, rather than because they have been properly educated in science. Once again, most educated Christians also accept the science. Why would those Christians accept the science on its genuine merits, whereas "atheists" only do so out of some sort of tribal loyalty?   

But at last it seems you are running up the Jolly Roger. The agenda is finally revealed. In some ways it's a relief to see my suspicions confirmed. 

 

Edited September 27 by exchemist

[Night FM]

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

All this from a person who claims clades are arbitrary........ 

"Random chance" in my experience, is a phrase used by creationists attempting to ridicule the theory of evolution. Similarly, the notion of "aggressive competition" is one beloved of creationists, rather than people who understand the science.

So we seem to have a string of Aunt Sallys here, based around what creationists claim the theory of evolution says. Last time I checked, most creationists are not atheists.  

To the best of my knowledge, these claims have been repeated and possibly misinterpreted by atheists themselves who have a specific agenda (such as those hwo wish to argue in favor of aggressive competition), so even if these claims originated with creationists, they've been repeated and affirmed by masses.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

To the best of my knowledge, these claims have been repeated and possibly misinterpreted by atheists themselves who have a specific agenda (such as those hwo wish to argue in favor of aggressive competition), so even if these claims originated with creationists, they've been repeated and affirmed by masses.

Can you provide examples then?

[Night FM]

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Can you provide examples then?

It would be hard to, because these are mostly anecdotal examples from social media.

If we use history as an example, it has been argued that Hitler used evolution to argue in favor of Nazi ideology:

https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism

 

Edited September 27 by Night FM

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

If we use history as an example, it has been argued that Hitler used evolution to argue in favor of Nazi ideology:

https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism

 

Yes, but he entirely missed the point, eugenics is not something we can control bc the enviroment changes in a future we have no idea about, no god need be involved, so whatever ism you choose, it has no bearing on the reality in front of you... 🙄

[npts2020]

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it,

Even if you are granted the notion that most atheists think the same way about anything, I don't suppose it is possible that after eliminating invisible pink unicorns as being the cause of everything in the universe, that evolution might be the best explanation for the way things are. Don't most people believe in what they think is the most plausible narrative of a topic?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Even if you are granted the notion that most atheists think the same way about anything, I don't suppose it is possible that after eliminating invisible pink unicorns as being the cause of everything in the universe, that evolution might be the best explanation for the way things are. Don't most people believe in what they think is the most plausible narrative of a topic?

Well dark matter and dark energy, could be invisible pink unicorns, it depends on the story...

[Phi for All]

Is this more ChatGPT bullshit?

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools. (Meaning if they had been born in the Middle Ages, they would be believing whatever the Church had taught them about the origins of humanity). Most aren't evolutionary biologists, and certainly never would have discovered the theory themselves from scratch - they're simply "fans" of the theory because they think it "means" something to them, or because they're attached to whatever they've been taught. Or perhaps they erroneously believe that it supports their atheistic stance (when, in reality, it doesn't, since evolution isn't mutually exclusive to creation, such as how supercomputers created by man "evolved" from simple calculators. Though some may use evolution to counter Biblical literalism).

You have no idea what "most atheists" believe in general, and you definitely don't know how "most atheists" feel about the theory of evolution. You don't need to be an "evolutionary biologist" to understand the theory, it's pretty logically consistent.

Why is it important to you that something must be discoverable "from scratch"? Is this because you think people find religion "by scratch"? I assure you, it takes quite a bit of work to go from nature spirits to a god like yours.

Evolution shows us that supernatural forces are NOT necessary. YOU erroneously believe that evolution has anything to do with creation, so of course the information you fed into ChatGPT is in error. Your arguments are extremely weak, based solely on your misunderstandings of science, and you show it with every post. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

It would be hard to, because these are mostly anecdotal examples from social media.

So when you claim that “Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it” this is not based upon any evidence. It’s just a premise you offer to bootstrap an argument.

The thing is, you could replace “evolution” with other science theories and make the same claims you do. Most people who understand a little physics are not actual physicists. These people wouldn’t have come up with Newtonian gravity on their own, either. So what? But it’s harder to argue that they do this to “support their atheistic stance” since Newtonian gravity isn’t seen as being in stark contrast to the Bible. Same goes for laws of motion, thermodynamics, E&M. You don’t need to come up with a concept to be able to understand the concept.

This whole thing reeks of bad faith. You need to do better, starting with not trying this “end run” tactic of stating some purported fact that  is something you’ve made up.

 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin. It dates as far back as the earliest of ancient Greek philosophers, just as materialist philosophy is also ancient (e.x. Epicurus was an early materialist). The belief that mankind simply originated "from nature" with no further explanation needed has been a common belief that has been held over the ages, and is arguably a simple observation which anyone could make even without pre-existing theories of evolution, given that the physical similarities between people and other animals are easily observable.

More misrepresentation. You just claimed that the theory of evolution claims we're from nature and gives no further explanation. How is this a strong argument?

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical (and has more in common with the Greek myth of "Chaos" being the deity from which the universe originated). In science, chaos, to my knowledge, only has meaning within Chaos theory, which, also to my knowledge, has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe.

Are you conflating Big Bang theory with evolutionary theory? Perhaps you misunderstand the words.

You seem to be demanding that "chaos" be used only in a way that makes you comfortable. Since you don't bother to cite your sources, we have no way to determine what "some claim".

You seem to be cherry-picking certain beliefs, ridiculing them, and then hoping we'll treat all beliefs regarding evolution the same way. Weak, weak, weak.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

4. Atheists often refer to people as "animals, apes", etc in a way which is intentionally or unintentionally reductive and devaluates the human condition to the level of animalistic behaviors associated with those less complex animals. (Such as the pursuit of materalistic needs which are low on Maslow's hierarchy compared to higher human needs). In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences. (Much as how you could classify both a calculator and a supercomputer as a "calculating machine" based on a shared function, but the differences between those two devices would be striking, regardless of how they're mutually classified).

This sounds like a you problem. Humans ARE animals, get over it. Nothing devalues us by telling the truth. Quite the opposite, it tells this atheist that it's our brains that give us our advantages, and I prefer to use them alongside scientific methodology as opposed to praying to Iron Age spirits for my redemption. 

[joigus]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

these claims have been repeated and possibly misinterpreted by atheists themselves who have a specific agenda (such as those hwo wish to argue in favor of aggressive competition),

Oh, yes. You mean those hundreds of atheists who plague Christian social networks trying to break people's faith.

Atheists probably invented the word "agnostic" just to be left alone by religious types.

The way it goes is not atheism misleads you into a flawed interpretation of evolution. Rather, understanding evolution makes it very hard to hold any belief in a personal god. It makes the idea extremely unlikely.

As many who argue in a similar way, you totally misunderstand "random". Deserts and jungles are very stable for millenia (non-random as compared to, eg, the life-cycle of lizards).

If environmental conditions varied very wildly every hour, there would be no room for evolution. It requires something slow (non-random enough, if you will) for there to be the chance for the adaptive system to actually adapt. The adaptive system cannot be "too random" either. It must allow for some part of the configuration space for random variation, while being very conservative with the part of it that's worked well (which is most of it).

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools.

It is taught in schools, not as a single statement, but a body of knowledge: evidence painstakingly collected, assessed and compared over two hundred plus years of scientific endeavour. Outside of classrooms, there is also a considerable scholarly and popular literature on the subject, as well as accessible video presentations. That's not 'indoctrination'; that's education.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin.

He and many other scientists, with the aid of their well documented observations and sample collections, made a comprehensive theory out of disparate observations that had previously amounted to nothing more than opinion. That the simple observation of similarities supports the same conclusion further reinforces the soundness of the theory.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical

That would be Genesis. Certainly, that book has been translated many times, but it has also been closely monitored by biblical scholars. But what has this to do with evolution?

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

Another example is when people say that life evolved through "random chance".

Only attackers of evolutionary theory say that. To those who understand it, there is nothing random about natural selection.

Competition in nature is a fact; it doesn't require advocacy.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

So I'd argue that biology and evolution more or less debunk individualism and render it either a pseudoscientific concept, beyond the fact that the organs need their autonomy for the entire body to function. (The existence of aggressive competition could therefore be seen as a defect, similarly to if an organ became cancerous and posed a threat to the wellbeing of the entire body).

Do you have the remotest idea what you're talking about?

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences.

Classification is not arbitrary; it's systematic and logical. And your objection to atheists using taxonomy to count humans among the great apes who share 94-96% of our DNA, is.... what exactly? I very much doubt any atheist would hire a bonobo for an administrative position or engage in a philosophical debate with a gorilla - we're pretty much aware of the differences. 

 

 

[npts2020]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Well dark matter and dark energy, could be invisible pink unicorns, it depends on the story...

At least those knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy admit that and are willing to accept evidence to the contrary when found, unlike those who believe invisible pink unicorns are responsible for everything in the universe...

[Night FM]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This sounds like a you problem. Humans ARE animals, get over it. Nothing devalues us by telling the truth.

As mentioned already, "animals" is simply a classification invented by humans based on shared similarities, and we could just as easily classify humans as something different altogether. So the statement that "humans are animals" is only as true as people decide it is. (If we decided on a completely different system of zoological classification, we could decide that humans are something else altogether).

Edited September 27 by Night FM

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Night FM said:

As mentioned already, "animals" is simply a classification invented by humans based on shared similarities, and we could just as easily classify humans as something different altogether.

Easily? What characteristics would justify a separate category? 

 

 

[Night FM]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Easily? What characteristics would justify a separate category? 

 

 

As an example, we could categories living things based on their needs as per Maslow's hierarchy. Presumably, most animals needs would fall into those lower on the hierarchy (e.x. material needs) while humans would be distinct from other animals due to having needs higher on the hierarchy.

The statement "humans are animals" isn't "true" beyond how people choose to arbitrarily classify them. It doesn't matter that "similarities between humans and animals exist". This doesn't beget a need to classify humans on the basis of those similarities, when they could just as easily be classified an infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similarities or differences.

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, Night FM said:

As mentioned already, "animals" is simply a classification invented by humans based on shared similarities, and we could just as easily classify humans as something different altogether.

You can choose to call humans whatever you wanted, it wouldn't change  the biology. You can classify any way you want, but will make no scientific sense. You can give any designation to like to any group and agree on that designation among your friends, but it won't help you communicate with anyone outside of that circle. 

[Night FM]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You can choose to call humans whatever you wanted, it wouldn't change  the biology. You can classify any way you want, but will make no scientific sense. You can give any designation to like to any group and agree on that designation among your friends, but it won't help you communicate with anyone outside of that circle. 

The biology is irrelevant, since classifications aren't mutually exclusive, and this doesn't bother to address arguments whether or not explaining life as originating from nature alone is sufficient.

(Another example which comes to mind is atheists stating that abiogenesis originated life, when in actuality it didn't. The science only shows that it originated certain components of life).

You could, for example, classify a Honda and a Ferrari the same on the basis of having "4 wheels", or differently on the basis of differences in horsepower. If one is insisting on one classification over the other (e.x. the "4 wheels" classification), then that begs the question as to why.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Night FM said:

As an example, we could categories living things based on their needs as per Maslow's hierarchy. Presumably, most animals needs would fall into those lower on the hierarchy (e.x. material needs) while humans would be distinct from other animals due to having needs higher on the hierarchy.

Ah, I had assumed you were to referring to biology, since animal is a biological designation, and we’re discussing evolution, i.e. biology.

But a non-sequitur is apparently in your wheelhouse.

Can you show (i.e. have evidence) that other animals do not have any of these other characteristics? Surely you have such evidence, since this is “easy”

48 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The statement "humans are animals" isn't "true" beyond how people choose to arbitrarily classify them. It doesn't matter that "similarities between humans and animals exist". This doesn't beget a need to classify humans on the basis of those similarities, when they could just as easily be classified an infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similarities or differences.

But it’s not arbitrary. Given that the classification of animals exists, how are humans not animals?

Infinite number? Really?

33 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Another example which comes to mind is atheists stating that abiogenesis originated life, when in actuality it didn't. The science only shows that it originated certain components of life).

Abiogenesis is a scientific term. Ascribing it to atheists lacks evidence. And it does, in fact, refer to the origin of life.

It would help tremendously if you knew what you were talking about, even a little, rather than spouting nonsense.

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The biology is irrelevant,

Not to biological taxonomy, it isn't! There are lots of other classifications and categories that work very well when discussing those other subjects. But if you attempt to transpose the terminology of one discipline into another discipline, you're speaking gibberish. As illustrated here.

32 minutes ago, Night FM said:

and this doesn't bother to address arguments whether or not explaining life as originating from nature alone is sufficient.

You can always take refuge in either the biblical version or the extraterrestrial school of thought. Just don't try to discuss it with scientists. 

34 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Another example which comes to mind is atheists stating that abiogenesis originated life, when in actuality it didn't. The science only shows that it originated certain components of life

Yes, and then....? What? god filled in the gaps with his magic crayon?

35 minutes ago, Night FM said:

You could, for example, classify a Honda and a Ferrari the same on the basis of having "4 wheels", or differently on the basis of differences in horsepower. If one is insisting on one classification over the other (e.x. the "4 wheels" classification), then that begs the question as to why.

It begs nothing: it merely demonstrates an equally willful ignorance of automobiles, a sub-group of motorized wheeled vehicles, a subgroup of wheeled vehicles, a subgroup of transport. You can create a system of categorizing everything in the world according to horsepower, but it would be meaningless without reference to how the horsepower is being used.   

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

You could, for example, classify a Honda and a Ferrari the same on the basis of having "4 wheels",

Yes, they are both automobiles.

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

or differently on the basis of differences in horsepower. If one is insisting on one classification over the other (e.x. the "4 wheels" classification), then that begs the question as to why.

That’s a small distinction. The answer is one of utility; there are far more similarities so the automobile designation is useful. Horsepower is demanding a very close or exact match, which is a finer distinction, better left to a subcatagory, much like we do in taxonomy. Animal is at the level of kingdom, i.e. quite high on the tree. Honda vs ferrari would probably be at the level of family (if one were to take the time to sort this out) with different models at a lower level and then horsepower below that, like different species or subspecies.

The larger picture is making a useful hierarchy out of this instead of haphazardly grasping at straws to defend a poorly-reasoned point

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

The biology is irrelevant

The biology is irrelevant…to biology?

[TheVat]

15 hours ago, Night FM said:

Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools.

Most philatelists only believe in Kirchhoff's Law because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most gastronomists only believe in the laws of thermodynamics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most podiatrists only believe in plate tectonics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most psychiatrists only believe in heliocentric theory because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Atheists probably invented the word "agnostic" just to be left alone by religious types.

Thumb up!  

[Night FM]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Most philatelists only believe in Kirchhoff's Law because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most gastronomists only believe in the laws of thermodynamics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most podiatrists only believe in plate tectonics because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Most psychiatrists only believe in heliocentric theory because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it.

Right, so the position they're coming from often isn't one of understanding. And I'm not talking about professionals in a field, but merely the "casual atheist" on social media who may have no understanding of the topic beyond what they learned in primary school or read in a Twitter post.

I think most biologists who've used the theory of evolution would believe it even if they hadn't been indoctrinated into it, but that a good chunk of atheists would just as easily believe what the Medieval Church told them was true if they had been born during that era.

Edited September 28 by Night FM

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

Right, so the position they're coming from often isn't one of understanding. 

Just like you and evolution. How hypocritical is it of you to criticize those who understand what you don't?