-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)
- Thread starter mo.mentum
- Start date
R.E.Taet
Member
- Sep 23, 2003
- 70
- 1
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ha Ha, very funny. Instead of saying what you believe, or put forth an idea you simply say, "I have no comment about X"Arikay said:
I think in the future when people ask me if I am a Christian I will respond "I have no opinion about Buddah"
Hmm... You say that humans are the product of evolution, so would it not follow under your logic that books are a product of the evolution of man? And man is the "mechanism that writes Coherent books." So Coherent books are the product of evolution, just like the idea of Atheism and Theism, War and Peace, etc.?Arikay said:
Yeah, I know, that post was 22 pages ago, but i didnt see that until after I had this written.
R. E. Taet
Upvote
0
The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
I'm not even sure if I made a valid point here.... judging by how I got schooled on my last post, at least I'll learn something.
It also makes sense that somewhere in the universe that probablility was hit, but we don't know how large the universe is! Oh well... food for thought...
I'm not even sure if I made a valid point here.... judging by how I got schooled on my last post, at least I'll learn something.
It also makes sense that somewhere in the universe that probablility was hit, but we don't know how large the universe is! Oh well... food for thought...
Upvote
0
Arthra
Baha'i
- Feb 20, 2004
- 7,060
- 572
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
mo.mentum said:
You know I think many people go through stages in their belief or dis-belief in God... So to me many atheists can be sincere searchers who have yet to find what for them is sufficient evidence to believe.... I also feel agnostics are perhaps more honest in their recognition that there is for them insufficient evidence for God but that they cannot rule God out as a possibility.
Another approach I've used with some is like the formula:
"There is no god.... but God"
So an atheist is almost there....
Another issue that I think is somewhat of a paradox are those who disbelieve there is a God advocating and arguing for their position with say Theists.
So you have something like an evangelical atheist. At bottom though one would have to ask why religion would still be of such great concern to them since they no longer believe in God?!
I was reading a note in the Surih al-Baqarah where there are descriptions given of those who disbelieve from verses 6 to 12 and particularly verse 10:
"In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease..." The note has: The "disease" mentioned here includes doubt, hypocrisy, arrogance and disbelief."
Well I have noticed a kind of arrogance toward others especially toward religious people by some atheists and they seem to feel emboldened at times to prescribe for religious people whatever comes into their minds. Institutionally this occurred in the Soviet Union where religions were proscribed and persecuted.
- Art
Upvote
0
I'm really sorry, but I'm not going to read over 20 pages so I can participate. If any of this has been said, the ignore it.
An even more interesting number is perhaps the amount of error that would have collapsed the universe. According to quantum mechanics, if the rate of expansion of the universe at singularity was off by 10^10^30, the universe would not be able to exist. Based on this data, christian scientists usally claim that a superior being must have created the universe because of such a small error. However, this thinking is flawed. Quantum mechanics also states that the universe is expanding at an increasingly infinite rate. If the rate of expansion is increasing and infinte, then the error is also increasing and infinite, thus negating the idea that a superior being must have created the universe because of the small error.
Someone also said a while ago that there are only 2 antrhopic principles. There are actually 3, but the third one is frowned upon because it has to do with aliens .
An even more interesting number is perhaps the amount of error that would have collapsed the universe. According to quantum mechanics, if the rate of expansion of the universe at singularity was off by 10^10^30, the universe would not be able to exist. Based on this data, christian scientists usally claim that a superior being must have created the universe because of such a small error. However, this thinking is flawed. Quantum mechanics also states that the universe is expanding at an increasingly infinite rate. If the rate of expansion is increasing and infinte, then the error is also increasing and infinite, thus negating the idea that a superior being must have created the universe because of the small error.
Someone also said a while ago that there are only 2 antrhopic principles. There are actually 3, but the third one is frowned upon because it has to do with aliens
.
Upvote
0
Well this has been the most hilarious exercises in hovindisms that I've seen in a long, long while.
Amazing how people who refuse to learn science can think they can argue against it.
Amazing how people who refuse to learn science can think they can argue against it.
Upvote
0
nephthys
Neo-Pagan apologist
mo.mentum said:
I am not an atheist, I'm not really familiar with their entire line of reasoning (calling it "belief" may not necessarily be the right term
) which compels them to be atheists, but I have to take issue with this point.Actually, to my knowledge, it was Christianity (a theistic belief system) which had the belief that the Universe was static and unchanging. For many, many years, it also insisted that our solar system (i.e. the known Universe, at the time) was geocentric even after science had shown that it was, in fact, heliocentric (I believe it was only fairly recently that the Church "forgave" Galileo for the heresy of claiming that it was heliocentric).
As far as I know, most atheists agree with the idea of the Big Bang - which means that they would have to accept the idea of a changing Universe.
Upvote
0
A hovindism refers to "Dr" Hovind, a Creationist. Hovind is famous for spouting scientificish arguements that sound reeeeeeeally good when your preaching to people who don't know about, and don't want to know about science, but which are so ludicrously fallacious that they have been know to bring reall scientists to tears of laughter.
A very common type of hovindism is the idea that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. Every couple of weeks some creation wannabe brings that arguement up expecting that all of us who actually know science will fall on our knees and beg forgiveness, and is somewhat miffed at the sound of sidesplitting laughter.
The "6 simple arguements" spouted in the OP not only do NOT disprove atheism, but are ludicrously NOT based on the science they claim to be. They probably sound reeeeeeally scientificish, but they arn't worth the manure used to grow enough wood for the pencil to write them. They've also been blown out of the water dozens of times (check the evolution forums) but Christians don't want the science, they want to be right, so they ignore the real science. So every couple of weeks people trot out the same tired old hovindisms and refuse to look up the answers already given. So we have a giggle and pat them on the head and pretend to be all impressed. Hovindisms, the last refuge of the luddite.
A very common type of hovindism is the idea that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. Every couple of weeks some creation wannabe brings that arguement up expecting that all of us who actually know science will fall on our knees and beg forgiveness, and is somewhat miffed at the sound of sidesplitting laughter.
The "6 simple arguements" spouted in the OP not only do NOT disprove atheism, but are ludicrously NOT based on the science they claim to be. They probably sound reeeeeeally scientificish, but they arn't worth the manure used to grow enough wood for the pencil to write them. They've also been blown out of the water dozens of times (check the evolution forums) but Christians don't want the science, they want to be right, so they ignore the real science. So every couple of weeks people trot out the same tired old hovindisms and refuse to look up the answers already given. So we have a giggle and pat them on the head and pretend to be all impressed. Hovindisms, the last refuge of the luddite.
Upvote
0
This is some interesting stuff! - I was about to read all twenty three pages but I read about 5 or 6 pages worth. I'm not going to debate anything, but I just want to say being "a Christian" for me personally there's room in science and evolution for God and I don't buy into a lot of creation science theories anymore than some of those archaic Darwinism theories that were disproved but for some reason is still being taught in schools. ;-) And when it comes down to day to day living, I don't care if the universe is expanding or not - I don't care if I evolved from a fish or ape or Eve or a Black Panther, the fact of the matter is that I am here in the now - and what bothers me the most about these eternal debates and all of these highly intelligent people spending all this money on research, etc - is why can't they take all that knowledge and that money and solve things closer to home instead of looking out to an expanding universe where some billion dollar satellite could get sucked into a black hole and never seen again or get destroyed by some space alien? ;-)
How come people can see these tiny little DNA strands in a cell but you can't put foil in a microwave? (don't answer, I'm just being facetious)
But I do have serious question that has puzzled me a long time.
How do scientists come to the conclusion that the planet and/or universe is millions or billions of years? I mean, what is there around to compare those numbers with?
How come people can see these tiny little DNA strands in a cell but you can't put foil in a microwave? (don't answer, I'm just being facetious)
But I do have serious question that has puzzled me a long time.
How do scientists come to the conclusion that the planet and/or universe is millions or billions of years? I mean, what is there around to compare those numbers with?
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
From an atheism FAQ:
"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.
Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what the is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts."
"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.
Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what the is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
