KazeAizen said:
When someone says "we are special snowflakes." when talking about people that believe in the creation you cannot tell me that doesn't sound like a bit of an asshole comment if you actually do believe in it.
I'm not really concerned with what a creationist finds to be an asshole comment. I've seen them take great offense at the notion that we are related to apes (which we are, since we're by definition apes and we are related to other humans). Trying to work around what might offend a given creationist is pointless.
I once offended someone by saying that homosexuals are unlike pedophiles because as a pedophile they felt they were being unfairly derided. I didn't even say that pedophilia was bad in my statement. All I said was that it was different[footnote]I take issue with anyone who molests kids, but I didn't say anything of the sort in that statement[/footnote]. I've learned that people will take umbrage no matter how nice you are. While I'm not going to specifically be hostile to anyone, nor do I tailor my opinion to the notion others "might" be offended.
However, the argument that we are alone in the universe is a special snowflake argument, literally that we are special and unique in the universe because God loves us/goddidit. Which doesn't even address all creationists, but specifically those who believe in the special snowflake hypothesis. This is completely germane, for the record.
Also, I'm now curious. I have seen the term "special ickle snowflake" applied to feminists and gays on this site routinely over the last month. Where are you when that happens? Or is it different? If so, why is it different? I would think it'd be worse. "ickle" is baby talk, used specifically derisively. I'm yet to see you respond to one of them.
I've seen so much of it I'm sick to freaking death of what appears to be almost everyone taking almost any chance they get to find a way to insult and or otherwise find excuses to show that they are "smarter" than us by going "Look here! Is this in your precious book? This science proves your fairy tale is bullshit. Take that."
Then stop inferring that.
I've been on rants recently on YouTube over the utterly dickish way atheists handle creationists. Several of the notable atheists on YouTube demonstrate that lack of a belief in God can be shared by the stupid as well as the smart. However, I also get where they're coming from: when creationists attack science, they routinely do it from a place that is either dishonest or ignorant. When they attack evolution, they frequently misrepresent it. When they calculate the probability of life emerging, they pull figures from dark places. It's easy to feel smart when someone proudly takes a stance that appears to be ignorance.
However, as I recently said in response to a YouTube video, "just because you're correct doesn't mean you're not a dick."
In fact, for a little more clarity on the subject, allow me to quote a question I recently posed to an atheist on YouTube for one of his Q&A vids:
I saw Matt Dillahunty talking about whether there are atheists who do more harm than good, and he took a stance to the effect of "it takes all kinds." Ideally, that would be great, but we're not in an ideal world. Ultimately, unfair as it is, minority groups tend to be judged by the worst of them--Muslims by terrorists, blacks by violent criminals, and atheists by utter jerks. These are the people I think tend to be remembered when the average person thinks about atheists. It's been said many times about minorities of any stripe: we have to be better.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the subject.
This isn't exactly the same topic, but it's close enough that it should illustrate my feelings on the matter.
But again, I do draw a distinction between "not being a dick" and "saying things which might potentially offend." Because I can do the former, but the latter is often difficult to predict.
From what I've seen anyone on the web that takes any kind of shot at religion and or creationism imply that those kinds of people are stupid bone headed monkeys and are not welcome on the web.
On the contrary. I want them on the web. They might learn something. Like the actual, non-Ray-Comfort definition of evolution.
Hell, this is one of the reasons I'd like to see their responses to the discovery of life on another planet. To my knowledge, there are three outcomes. The first is that they could ignore it. The second is they merely adapt their claims. But the third....The third is that they actually get exposed to a bit of evidence contrary to their claims. The internet has the potential to be an echo chamber, but I've watched people learn once they get exposed to the greater environment. A lot of people simply do not find themselves challenged, and thus have no grounds to grow or learn.
And to be honest, I'd really like to see YEC die out. I don't care if people believe in God, but YECs are the ones who are promoting that we get rid of our scientific literacy (for the most part). Christians still make up like 70% of scientists (though that number goes down in some fields); Christians are not the problem. Even believing in a Creator God isn't in itself a problem. The idea that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, evolution is a lie, and anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong? That's harmful. Especially if they want it taught in schools. To borrow from Bill Nye, we need scientifically literate people. They make all the cool stuff. Evolution is important to medicine and biology, exploration of space (and we've barely scratched the surface) has given us all sorts of technology, and even understanding the earth is not flat has benefited anyone who's ever used GPS.
Creationists believe that this is the only habitable planet and can be the only one or something?
Some creationists do. I can't speak for all, but there is a common thread that we are alone in the universe because God made this one special place for us. Often this is accompanied by the aforementioned calculations of the rarity of life, which demonstrate a failure to understand probability but also are a bit inane since we have no numbers to use for the calculation. Well, we have A number: the number of known planets with life on them. But that's like calculating the probability of a lottery without knowing how many numbers there are to pick from, how many of those numbers are can be picked on a ticket, etc.
The arguments can be succinctly summed up as "we are alone in the universe, therefore God," or "the odds against us existing are phenomenal, therefore God." Both of which could be altered if we determine this other planet has the capacity to have life. And as long as we have people trying to teach creationism (and specifically, young earth creationism) in school and attacking scientific principles, this is a germane issue. If we revised everything in our scientific understanding because of what contradicts the Bible, we wouldn't even bother with deep space, because nothing more than six thousand light-years is real, anyway. That's a simplistic version of the argument, and doesn't reflect every creationist view[footnote]for example, the belief that the universe was created with age[/footnote], but still. It'd be hard, since there are various beliefs as to why the earth is young (or at least, various arguments).
