6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

Arikay · Aug 12, 2003

Yeah I was talking about Buddhism and Taoism as general groups as they are today. There are Atheist Buddhist groups as well as theistic ones.

I do believe there are still some practicers of original Taoism, but most are of the Philosophical kind, and it pretty much leaves it open for your own belief. Although the purest philo taoist view I would think would be agnostic, since there is no point to care about such things, but that can be looked at in other ways as well.

vajradhara said:
Namaste Arikay,

hmm... well, i would not concur with that interpetation. the Sutras clearly indicate that the Buddha taught men and gods.

i suppose you could say that it is atheist in that Buddhists don't believe that gods are eternal nor omnipotent though that would certainly be a novel interpetation

as for Taoism... it really depends on the school in question. without doubt the religious taoists held there to be gods.. the Three Taoist Immortals, for instance. however, religious Taoism is mostly non-existent today. what has continued down is the philosophical and alchemical schools of Taoism, most broadly represented by the Northern and Southern Schools of Complete Reality. so, i suppose it would depend on which type of Taoism we are discussing.. however, the philosophical and alchemical schools do not hold there to be diety of any type.

feral · Aug 12, 2003

mo.mentum said:
Hi

Many of you know me not. But heck, if you ever have a heated debate with an atheist, here's some arguments you can use.

1- An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal. Everyone thought that the Universe was stationary and unchaning. However, this was proven to be blatantly wrong, by SCIENCE. Edwin Hubble discovered that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. More recent research has confirmed the idea of the Big Bang. Which means that the Universe had a beginning. If it has a beginning, it is not eternal, nor did it come into existence out of its own will.

i'm sorry but i don't see this as an important part of atheism. people once believed that applying leeches cured illness, but that has no bearing on the medical professon today. the creation of the universe has no bearing on my belief in a deity.

2- The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion. But try to blow up a mountain and let me know if a perfectly ordered appartment building comes out of it. Physics has discovered that this "explosion" was highly controlled and designed. It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)

i am not a subscriber to the big bang theory. how and why the universe came into being does not effect me at this time. i see many things in nature which are perfect. that does not mean they were created by an individual.

3- The Anthropic principle is an another cool feature of the Universe. Atheists believe in a random Universe. Everything came into being by chance. For the first time since the 1970s, scientists have begun to recognize the fact that the whole physical balance of the universe is adjusted delicately in favor of human life. With the advance of research, it has been discovered that the physical, chemical and biological laws of the universe, basic forces such as gravity and electro-magnetism, the structure of atoms and elements are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Scientists have called this extraordinary design the anthropic principle. That is, every aspect of the universe is designed with a view to human life.

(ask me if you want to know more about the delicate balances in the Universe)

i don't believe in a random universe. it's too precise. that does not mean it was made by a god, or that a god does exist.

4- With Quantum Physics, or the study of the very very smallest subatomic particles and their interactions, we see an order that is mind boggling. It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter. The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy. I can go on for hours on this topic alone...

again, order does not mean it was made by a deity. the stories in the christian bible do not back up modern scientific theory.

5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not). All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment. You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous. [see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]

evolution is just a process of change. whether we came from monkeys can be debated, but the fact that human and animal life adapt and are altered can not.

6- Most significant has been the exposure of Freuds views of religion as entirely fallacious. Ironically enough, scientific research in psychology over the past twenty-five years has demonstrated that, far from being a neurosis or source of neuroses as Freud and his disciples claimed, religious belief is one of the most consistent correlates of overall mental health and happiness. Study after study has shown a powerful relationship between religious belief and practice, on the one hand, and healthy behaviors with regard to such problems as suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, depression, even, perhaps surprisingly, levels of sexual satisfaction in marriage, on the other. In short, the empirical data run exactly contrary to the supposedly scientific consensus of the psychotherapeutic profession.

i am aware that belief in something can help a body heal itself. such is the case with placebos in pill or dogma form.

An atheist denies God, just as Satan openly rebels against God. Satan fears God, knows God exists, but of out of spite and jealousy drives away from giving Thanks to Our Lord. Many poeple are this way, even when they see the Signs that have been made obvious to mankind.

sorry, but i don't deny god out of spite, jealousy or anything else. if i was to have proof of his existence i would be more then happy to obey, but i won't obey a figment of the imagination. i have no jealousy - i certainly don't want to be in charge of the world, but i see nothing to prove that there is a god to worship.

mo.mentum · Aug 13, 2003

feral said:
sorry, but i don't deny god out of spite, jealousy or anything else. if i was to have proof of his existence i would be more then happy to obey, but i won't obey a figment of the imagination. i have no jealousy - i certainly don't want to be in charge of the world, but i see nothing to prove that there is a god to worship.

Hey! To each his own, right? I'm avid believer of that.

I have some views to offer and want to offer them. My introductory post, which you replied to was intentionally lacking so as to entail a heated debate. Maybe if you read some of my later posts, you would get a clearer picture of the concept of God I am trying to express.

Science and God cannot be seperated. Since the scientific method was pioneered in the Middle East around 7th AD, until the Renaissance and Enlightenment, scientists pursued knowledge of nature because they recognized that throught it, God revealed his Wisdom, Might, Knowledge and Love.

My proof came to me in science. Yours might come to you from music, or some other interest of yours.

I simply do not know. But that is my POV.

mo.mentum · Aug 13, 2003

BTW GUYS!

As you've come to expect from me controversial information, I'm attacking evolution/atheism/materialism again. (yes yes ur all different and have different perogatives, but you know that i dont care and lump you all together) hahaha

Check out this quick article about how the established laws (not theories) of ThermoDynamics go against everything that evolution portrays.

This destroys evolution as a scientific theory because it counters established physical laws.

This destroys atheism as a system of belief because Creation is the only solution.

This destroys materialism because you cannot be a materialist without being an atheist. So see above point.

Ya i might be ahead of myself, as you know me. But check out the article. I'm curious to what your pretty minds might come up with as counter.

You've impressed me so far, but not too much.

Arikay · Aug 13, 2003

The Laws of Thermodynamics dont go against Evolution at all (I assume you mean the 2LOT, as I didnt see an article). Its a misunderstanding, one that most creationist organizations have learned to drop by now. If you would like I could post information about why it does not.

Speaking of Laws and Theories, they are different things. However, laws are not infalible as we have seen with the Law of Gravity (which breaks down under certain circumstances, and now has given rise to a theory of gravity to try and figure out why it breaks down).

So, it does not destroy Evolution because you have misunderstood the 2LOT.

It does not destroy atheism because, 1) it does not destroy Evolution, 2) Evolution is not atheism and so to falsify evolution it would not falsify atheism, and 3) disproving one Theory does not automatically prove another. Science does work through falsifacation but the other theory would need to go through the scientific proccess as well. If Evolution was falsified, the theory that would take its place would not be the already falsified theory of creationism. It would probably be a variation on Evolution, as Evolution does Very well at answering our questions and fitting with All the data.

And it doesnt destroy materialism because it failed at its other tasks.

Besides, How stupid do you think scientists are? Do you really think that if Evolution went against the 2LOT that they wouldnt have seen it by now? Unless there is some sort of giant Conspiracy or something.

Oh, BTW, are you going to correct that Dawkins quote, or leave him misrepresented? Do you know the rest of the quote?

mo.mentum · Aug 13, 2003

Mmm ah huh, yes yes mmm yes ah huh..of course..ah huh...oh wait, u've told me nothing new Arikay.

Sorry i forgot to post the article, my bad. http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted14.php

Arikay said:
Oh, BTW, are you going to correct that Dawkins quote, or leave him misrepresented? Do you know the rest of the quote?

Im intentionally ignoring it, get a clue uve ignored enough of my points, my turn. No i didnt read the whole book, so i dont have the full quotations. Hey if there's enough reasonable doubt for him to say that, then there's something there.

If the rest of the quote says "oh wait, im BSing you..im convinced with evolution"..then bring it on.

Arikay · Aug 13, 2003

There is a difference between puting parts of your posts off to address what I view are the more pressing matters. and to misquote or misrepresent someone and then Intentionally allow the quote to be unfixed. That is dishonest.

If you are unwilling to correct the quote and stick to the dishonest act, then I am unwilling to continue this conversation.

I would say the same thing if an Evolutionist were to misquote a creationist.

mo.mentum · Aug 13, 2003

Arikay said:
There is a difference between puting parts of your posts off to address what I view are the more pressing matters. and to misquote or misrepresent someone and then Intentionally allow the quote to be unfixed. That is dishonest.

If you are unwilling to correct the quote and stick to the dishonest act, then I am unwilling to continue this conversation.

I would say the same thing if an Evolutionist were to misquote a creationist.

I didnt misquote. Nor did i mislead! I put down word for word what he said and included the bibliography.

Why don't you stop playing these stupid childish mind games and come out with what you want to say or quote already.

You keep avoiding the subject.

Arikay · Aug 13, 2003

You are misrepresenting Dawkins by taking the quote out of context. You put down word for word what you read somewhere else and failed to search to find out if that is really what he ment.

I do not own the book but I can find the context online.

When talking on the forums I have a pet peeve with dishonesty, be it misquoting or Plagerizing. These dishonest actions (especially when pointed out and given chance to correct) are not acceptable and I will not waste my time with those who find it ok to be dishonest.

Until it is corrected I will not continue in this conversation. Others will probably come and answer your questions, or it will sit here, but until then I will no longer take part of it.

mo.mentum said:
I didnt misquote. Nor did i mislead! I put down word for word what he said and included the bibliography.

Why don't you stop playing these stupid childish mind games and come out with what you want to say or quote already.

You keep avoiding the subject.

the_malevolent_milk_man · Aug 13, 2003

Haha, you were right arikay, it's the same BS that's been used and refuted for years. It doesn't disprove anything about evolution, if anything it's an attack on creation of life without a god.

The entire article hinges on this one statement "The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. "

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution starts when life starts reproducing.

Jet Black · Aug 13, 2003

mo.mentum, are you going to address your poor physical knowledge, or not? you claimed that your proof came to you through science, but as I have shown, your science is fundamentally flawed, hence so must your proof be. (except by some coincidence and cancellation of errors, though this still denies your original assertation of where your proof came from)

Jet Black · Aug 13, 2003

all attacks on evolution using the 2nd law ignore process. it is an annoying flaw that I see over and over again.

consider a bowl of water, containing dissolved sodium chloride. you stir it, shake it, heat it, cool it, put it in a container and throw it over the niagra falls, launch it into space... do what you like to it. it is now completely disordered.

now take the lid off the container and leave it for a few days, what do you get?

now the sodium chloride in this "salt" is clearly more organised than in the shaken and stirred (much to the chagrin of Mr Bond) vessel.... but do I hear you cry "oh no, salt cannot exist because it defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because it is now more ordered than it used to be!"?

the_malevolent_milk_man · Aug 13, 2003

Arikay is also quite on taking Dawkins out of context. Dawkins was one of the most influential pro evolution writers. (edit: Why the heck do I always confuse darwin and dawkins?)

This is what his main point is, oddly enough it's the title of the book, whoulda thunk it?

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning"

Here is the rest of the quote that mo.mentum left out

""the Cambrian strata of Rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies; no shells or bones to fossilize. .... Both schools of thought (NeoDarwinians and punctuationalists) agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative."
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 229-230."

Jet Black · Aug 13, 2003

shuffled 2 posts to merge.

Jet Black · Aug 13, 2003

to follow milk man and arikay.... if you are going to quote from a monumental tome like the blind watchmaker, at least do us the service of reading it. It is somewhat irritating that we are continually accused of taking the bible out of context, when our accusors are guilty of the same.

Matt 7:3

the_malevolent_milk_man · Aug 13, 2003

Aside from providing tons of false and partial evidence Mo.mentum still has yet to make a case for his brand of creationism.

If by some miracle you manage to prove evolution wrong... then what? You still have no case for creationism. Aliens planting life is just as probable as God doing it, in fact moreso since they don't have to break the laws of physics.

Jet Black · Aug 13, 2003

that would be mo proving abiogenesis wrong. one can't disprove evolution because it is an already verified fact. you might as well attempt to disprove that the sun came up today.

mo.mentum · Aug 14, 2003

the_malevolent_milk_man said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution starts when life starts reproducing.

Refer to my post about the complexity of a most basic living cell. It's not just glob of flesh.

OH AND ARIKAY. I won't miss your "contributions" to the thread. You argue about semantics and fail to the see the larger picture. Nit picking is for the meak.

mo.mentum · Aug 14, 2003

Jet Black said:
now the sodium chloride in this "salt" is clearly more organised than in the shaken and stirred (much to the chagrin of Mr Bond) vessel.... but do I hear you cry "oh no, salt cannot exist because it defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because it is now more ordered than it used to be!"?

YOU ARE SUCH A COMIC. How can you compare SOLUBILITY and CHEMICAL reactions, to complex biological processes. You are sooo off i feel ashamed having to bring you back to the fold.

mo.mentum · Aug 14, 2003

the_malevolent_milk_man said:
Here is the rest of the quote that mo.mentum left out

""the Cambrian strata of Rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies; no shells or bones to fossilize. .... Both schools of thought (NeoDarwinians and punctuationalists) agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative."
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 229-230."

Thanks. I don't see however how this makes my quote invalid. Just because Neodarwinists and punctualists dismiss this possibility that it should be dismissed.

Science has become the Inquisitional Church of our time, dismissing all other philosophical views. Every day researchers change their ideas about their conclusions and the most outlandish ones end up being accepted! [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! The earth is round, who woulda thunk it.

They said themselves. No other alternative but Creation. They're using another plug to the theory "animals with only soft parts that cant fossilize". First off, the leap from such creatures to the cambrian type animals would leave some sort of exoskeleton or light skeletal structures to fossilize or imprint on rock. There is NOTHING, NADA. If we can find fossils of bacteria, ur telling me we cant find those fossils???

6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

HI

Dostoyevsky was right

[One God]

[One God]

HI

[One God]

HI

[One God]

HI

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

[One God]

[One God]

[One God]

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency