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

[Smilin]

Why is this in 'other religions'...

and not in the science forum where
it belongs?

 

[Arikay]

Because the original poster, Mo, thought he was attacking atheism when in reality he was attacking science.

 

[Smilin]

Because the original poster, Mo, thought he was attacking atheism when in reality he was attacking science.

lol...careful Arikay, or you'll be trapped into admitting
atheism is a true religion...

I won't give up any secrets...yet some may find
out more than they need to know....

 

[loveHIM_liveHIM]

i think atheism is a religion... but i guess thats all a technicality in how you define "religion".

if a religion is a belief system concerns deity, and atheism is a belief that there is no deity, then wouldnt it qualify as a religion?

 

[Arikay]

I dont think its quite a religion yet, but it is a belief.
Most atheism would fit in the same category you put theism in. So if theism is a religion, then so is atheism.

I say most atheism, because the literal definition of atheism, is not always a religion but a non belief. Often called weak atheism. Its the lack of belief in a deity. Some would argue that its how infants are born, without an understanding of what deity means, so they lack a belief in it.

As far as what smilin was talking about, he was joking.

 

[ps139]

Yes. Religion is not restricted to organized religion. A person's beliefs, values, and way of living them out are his religion. Religion is from the Latin "to bind." A binding set of principles which influence your worldview and guide your actions. Everyone has a religion.

 

[Carico]

Scientific theories that come from man change faster than the weather. But the words of the bible have still never been disproven. If people prefer to believe in the changing theories of man, that's their choice, but man has consistenly shown himself to be ignorant.

 

[Arikay]

A good example of the misunderstandings of the OP.

science is not against god. Please read 3 times. Rinse, wash, repeat again, and again and again.

scientific theories change, and become more and more accurate as more data is found. The bible has never been disproven, however, certain interpretations of the bible have been shown false. Such as the literal interpretation. Often this is what spurs anti science beliefs by some christians. They take their man made interpretation of the bible, as infallible fact. Since their interpretation is infallible, it must be the science that is wrong. Of course, the majority of christians realize, that since the earth was created by god, science is just mans translations of gods creation. As we learn more, science changes to fit what we have learned, since we know that we are not omnipotent, we should change as new facts present themself.

Its interesting to point out that a very similar battle played out a couple hundred years ago, between helocentrists and geocentrists, the geocentrists being those who said to listen to the bible over science. Of course, zoom forward to now, and there are very few geocentrists, and the belief in a heliocentric system didn't destroy the bible, or do anything bad. matter of fact, the majority of people would call the geocentrists of now a days "ignorant."

Scientific theories that come from man change faster than the weather. But the words of the bible have still never been disproven. If people prefer to believe in the changing theories of man, that's their choice, but man has consistenly shown himself to be ignorant.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Scientific theories that come from man change faster than the weather.

Of course that's nothing but a ridiculous exaggeration.

But the words of the bible have still never been disproven.

Sure they have when it comes to things like a literal interpretation of the creation story, Jewish exodus from Egypt, or the global flood which have been disproven. However if you don't take them literally, you can interpret those events into meaning anything which makes them unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

 

[loveHIM_liveHIM]

I believe the literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, as do many people (all the christians) that i know. Many, many people, both scientists and lay-people, do not agree that science has proven the literal interpretation wrong. Yes, many current theories disagree with it, but that doesn't prove anything.

And please, please I ask two things of everyone who is getting all upset and ready to reply: One, don't ridicule what someone else believes (ie: calling them "uneducated", their assertions "ridiculous", etc) and please don't just throw a bunch of stuff you read somewhere back at me. Don't state something as fact unless you have the facts to back it up; otherwise, be gracious. Say "this is my opinion" or "i believe...". Thank you.

 

[revolutio]

And please, please I ask two things of everyone who is getting all upset and ready to reply: One, don't ridicule what someone else believes (ie: calling them "uneducated", their assertions "ridiculous", etc) and please don't just throw a bunch of stuff you read somewhere back at me. Don't state something as fact unless you have the facts to back it up; otherwise, be gracious. Say "this is my opinion" or "i believe...". Thank you.

I do truely agree with you. I had a very similar attitude when I first came to these forums, and still do to some extent. I was far more skeptical of the hotly debated issues. The more I learned the more I came to recognize that the evidence really is pretty one sided.

Though there is always a chance that it is wrong, virtually all of modern science points away from a literal interpretation of the Bible. If there really was a world wide flood or spontaneous creation and no evolution it would appear God put a great deal of evidence into covering it up.

I still don't know for certain but the evidence is as close to true "proof" as we can ever really get. I think most people will concure that the chance is always there so I think an "in my opinion" is implied with most things. The empirical evidence though does its own speaking.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Scientific theories that come from man change faster than the weather. But the words of the bible have still never been disproven. If people prefer to believe in the changing theories of man, that's their choice, but man has consistenly shown himself to be ignorant.

If people are ignorant now, why not then?

Certainly people's outlook on the bible has changed over time as well. Should all branches of christianity be considered in the same light as your opinion of changing scientific theories?

Just a thought...

 

[Arikay]

Yes your right, it does not 100% prove the literal interpretation wrong, but it does get very close, 99.9%.

Ok, Fact, christian geologists started falsifying the global flood in the early 1800's. By the late 1800's very few, if any geologist, christian or otherwise, believed in the global flood because of the evidence against it.

Fact/opinion, I have yet to hear of a single geologist that believes the global flood is real based on only the evidence. Many of the creationist groups that support a literal interpretation of the bible, make their scientists sign a statement of faith, that basically says that no matter what the evidence, they will still believe they are right. Not very scientific, I dont think.

Fact, Most of the evidence that is used to scientifically support a literal reading of the bible, has been shown false, inaccurate or a misunderstanding for quite awhile, yet it is still used as truth by many.

Fact, Most of the science that literalists dont accept, was originally discovered or thought up by christians. Falsifacation of the flood, Evolution, The big Bang.

Opinion, Literalism can actually be dangerous to the faith if explored too far, as it often requires the belief that either A) God is a liar, B) Ignorance is good, C) There is a giant conspiracy. Given these options, many have left christianity because they could not accept them. Matter of fact, it is believed that the inability to reconcile gods creation (the earth) with the literal interpretation of the bible, led to the depresion and eventual suicide of one of those 19th century christian geologists.

A quote I stole from Lucaspa,

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."
Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;​

I believe the literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, as do many people (all the christians) that i know. Many, many people, both scientists and lay-people, do not agree that science has proven the literal interpretation wrong. Yes, many current theories disagree with it, but that doesn't prove anything.

And please, please I ask two things of everyone who is getting all upset and ready to reply: One, don't ridicule what someone else believes (ie: calling them "uneducated", their assertions "ridiculous", etc) and please don't just throw a bunch of stuff you read somewhere back at me. Don't state something as fact unless you have the facts to back it up; otherwise, be gracious. Say "this is my opinion" or "i believe...". Thank you.

 

[mo.mentum]

Arikay,

What if my Scripture talks of the flood of Noah as a regional event, not global. And also that instead of havign a male/female of every animal on the planet, he actually took aboard other believers that God wanted to be saved.

Also, there is no need to reshape verses or methaphysically re-interpret them in order to fit them into scientific data. Do i still qualify as a misguided theist in your eyes?

"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (Q21:32)

The sky indeed protects us from cosmic radiation, UV rays, destroys a great portion of meteors before they reach the surface, oh and the sky also protects from the -270C temperature of space.

"It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things." (Q2:29)
"Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate." (Q41:12)

Scientists have found that the atmosphere consists of several layers. The layers differ in such physical properties as pressure and the types of gasses. The layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth is called the TROPOSPHERE. It contains about 90% of the total mass of the atmosphere. The layer above the troposphere is called the STRATOSPHERE. The OZONE LAYER is the part of the stratosphere where absorption of ultraviolet rays occurs. The layer above the stratosphere is called the MESOSPHERE. The THERMOSPHERE lies above the mesosphere. The ionized gases form a layer within the thermosphere called the IONOSPHERE. The outermost part of Earth's atmosphere extends from about 480 km out to 960 km. This part is called the EXOSPHERE. (Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; General Science, Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 319-322)

That makes 7! And that's just one example.

 

[mo.mentum]

OH!

And why is there such a taboo on Origins science? Every one is flaunting Evolution around as though it's a proven theory! Well it's not friends! There's still quite a long way to go before it's fully accepted, yet you don't know that do you.

There needs to be more objectivity on the parts of science when it comes to studying Origins. The Christian/Muslim Creationist perspective needs to be looked at closer because there is just as much evidence for that as for Evolution.

Anyway. Big name scientists are starting to come together just for that...Science needs to be objective, not ideological.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Every one is flaunting Evolution around as though it's a proven theory! Well it's not friends!

The only reason for that is because there is no such thin as a "proven theory" in science. A scientific theory is the pinnacle of science.

There's still quite a long way to go before it's fully accepted, yet you don't know that do you.

That depends on what you mean by "fully accepted." It certainly isn't fully accepted by laymen, but in the scientific community there really is no debate as to its veracity.

The Christian/Muslim Creationist perspective needs to be looked at closer because there is just as much evidence for that as for Evolution.

No, not really.

Anyway. Big name scientists are starting to come together just for that...Science needs to be objective, not ideological.

I agree. That's why "creation science" organizations are no longer practicing science. They make no effort to be objective and are bound to their conclusion strictly because of their ideology.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (Q21:32)

The sky indeed protects us from cosmic radiation, UV rays, destroys a great portion of meteors before they reach the surface, oh and the sky also protects from the -270C temperature of space.

That's an enormous stretch. That is, in effect, reinterpreting your religious text to try to agree with scientific data.

"It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things." (Q2:29)
"Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate." (Q41:12)

Scientists have found that the atmosphere consists of several layers. The layers differ in such physical properties as pressure and the types of gasses. The layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth is called the TROPOSPHERE. It contains about 90% of the total mass of the atmosphere. The layer above the troposphere is called the STRATOSPHERE. The OZONE LAYER is the part of the stratosphere where absorption of ultraviolet rays occurs. The layer above the stratosphere is called the MESOSPHERE. The THERMOSPHERE lies above the mesosphere. The ionized gases form a layer within the thermosphere called the IONOSPHERE. The outermost part of Earth's atmosphere extends from about 480 km out to 960 km. This part is called the EXOSPHERE. (Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; General Science, Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 319-322)

That makes 7! And that's just one example.

Your other examples have been debunked before on the science forum, but it's funny that you still pretend they exist as valid. Furthermore, our divisions of the atmosphere are man-made, not simply self-evident. We could have easily defined more or less layers of the atmosphere. This is merely concidence and you reinterpreting your religious text again. Clearly it was not meant as reference to the details you just posted.

 

[Arikay]

If you dont believe in a global flood, but you believe in a young earth, you will have major problems. As most creationist group relly on the flood to do pretty much everything, from supposable creating and organizing the geological column, to the distortion of all the dating methods, etc.

Without the Flood Young Earth creationism cant stand. That is only if you believe in a young earth.


Quite a long way till it gets accepted? Might I suggest wandering around in books of real science. It has been accepted for awhile now. And there is not "just as much evidence" for creationism as evolution. A good majority of the evidence for creationism has been falsified, its false, its wrong. The evidence for evolution not only hasn't been falsified, but it keeps growing. Just take a look at somewhere like pubmed and do a search for evolution.

Unfortunatly many people seem to think its ok to use false or bad evidence, or to misrepresent the theory of evolution, so that they can pretend there is as much evidence for creationism. When in reality creationism is a falsified theory, it has joined the ranks of flat earth, Spontaneous generation, geocentrism, etc. Awhile ago.

Thus its "taboo" to treat creationism as valid, just as much as its "taboo" to try to say science says the earth is flat.

 

[mo.mentum]

That's an enormous stretch. That is, in effect, reinterpreting your religious text to try to agree with scientific data.



Your other examples have been debunked before on the science forum, but it's funny that you still pretend they exist as valid. Furthermore, our divisions of the atmosphere are man-made, not simply self-evident. We could have easily defined more or less layers of the atmosphere. This is merely concidence and you reinterpreting your religious text again. Clearly it was not meant as reference to the details you just posted.

This must be the *least competent* argument I have heard to this point.

How am I twisting Scripture here? Does it not say "protected roof"? How can i twist it to mean anything other? Would you like me to quote the Arabic original perhaps?

And no, I don't think they were debunked in any other forum. Those were people's opinions and biases. This is mine.

Life is about seeing relations and making the links. Some see them, others are too caught up in their own self dilusion of grandeur to admit that PERHAPS, they were wrong in their worldview.

Either way, i want nothing from any of you. Whether its acceptance or belief or whatever I have what i need, im just hear to call people to a higher order. It's up to them to make up their minds.

 

[mo.mentum]

If you dont believe in a global flood, but you believe in a young earth, you will have major problems. As most creationist group relly on the flood to do pretty much everything, from supposable creating and organizing the geological column, to the distortion of all the dating methods, etc. Without the Flood Young Earth creationism cant stand. That is only if you believe in a young earth.

no no...no young earth here either. We are taught that there was a LONG LONG LONG time before anything called Human ever existed in the Universe.

The Earth, Heavens etc took several days in God's perspective to create. In the same time we're told that the days in God's reckoning could be 5000, 50000, or 500000 years...so in any case...the age of the Earth is to be determined by our intellect and reason, ie: scientific discovery.

We have no beef with scientific theories in any way, as they are today.

Quite a long way till it gets accepted? Might I suggest wandering around in books of real science. It has been accepted for awhile now. And there is not "just as much evidence" for creationism as evolution. A good majority of the evidence for creationism has been falsified, its false, its wrong. The evidence for evolution not only hasn't been falsified, but it keeps growing. Just take a look at somewhere like pubmed and do a search for evolution.

Ummm..2 words for ya: PILTDOWN MAN

When in reality creationism is a falsified theory, it has joined the ranks of flat earth, Spontaneous generation, geocentrism, etc. Awhile ago.

Thus its "taboo" to treat creationism as valid, just as much as its "taboo" to try to say science says the earth is flat.

Spontaneous generation is EXACTLY where the theory of Evolution started my friend...