Author Topic: Atheism's Weakness  (Read 1856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Atheism's Weakness
« on: November 05, 2011, 09:03:16 AM »
http://www.deism.com/atheism.htm

If existence is a Creation, who or what  (in the right mind) created it? If Existence is eternal, how did this happen? How is this possible? If it is just an accident of nature, why did it happen? There are some things in the world that are better to not know, but these questions are very important so we should have the right to know, because we are in existence.

Quote
The question that arises about nature is: is it a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature. The Deist will maintain that it is a creation, but Deists will differ as to degree of involvement on the part of the Creator in the process. The atheist will counter that it is either eternal, or accidental. The final resolution of this problem will eventually be up to science to settle.

To begin, let us look at nature as an ever changing and shifting painting. Science attempts to understand what the paint and canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes that are involved in the final product. But, what about the painter? If one admits that nature is similar to a painting, than it is not too far a leap to conclude that a painter exists, or at least existed at one time.

The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems.

First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it.

Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet. So to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy.

Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here? No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist. So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it. Science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg -- as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist. If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach.

So where does the Deist stand? The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe. The belief in God in no more illogical than the belief in Extraterrestrial life forms. Nevertheless, despite the present lack of evidence for E.T. life forms, few scientists would outright dismiss them. If one accepts that E.T. life forms may exist, then one must conclude that such life forms could be far superior to us in knowledge and power -- if so, then God is in a sense, could be regarded as an E.T. life form as well. Or more accurately an Extradimensional life form. Such a being, or beings, cannot be dismissed as impossibilities.

The atheist demands that the Deist, or theist, provide evidence for the existence of God. They continually resort to logical fallacies of their own, for example, a common one is the Petitio principii (begging the question) fallacy; it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature. But is this true? No. We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven. The atheist has no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental; they are assuming that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact. Obviously there is a great gap between speculation and fact to the rational mind.

We have the painting, but to dismiss that there is a painter is illogical, unless there is evidence that it is either an eternal painting or an accident. So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless.

Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. Often this tactic works, the believer will then try to make an argument for God, only to have the atheist demand that the believer first define God in some clear manner. Once the believer makes this mistake, he loses the debate. We are still in the process of understanding the painting, so trying to define the painter is doomed to failure; the believer must recognize this tactic and avoid it. Deists should feel free to openly state that there is absolutely no evidence against a Creator being, or a Creation, and that all skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data. Deists believe there is something more; that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational. That "more" is God. Deists are willing to wait for the answer and are keeping an open mind on the matter; it is the atheists, who fear waiting. Simply put there is no evidence against God, nor is there evidence against a Creation [design]. The burden of proof does not lie on the open mind, but on the closed dogmatic mind which assumes that we already know all there is to know.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10849
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2011, 09:05:02 AM »
If existence is a Creation

Sorry, I don't accept conclusions with "If's" as premises. Especially one that is just plain wrong.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2011, 09:10:18 AM »

Sorry, I don't accept conclusions with "If's" as premises. Especially one that is just plain wrong.

Who knows what existence really is? or the true meaning of it? People should not force beliefs on people without the clear evidence.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10849
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2011, 09:11:23 AM »

Sorry, I don't accept conclusions with "If's" as premises. Especially one that is just plain wrong.

Who knows what existence really is? or the true meaning of it? People should not force beliefs on people without the clear evidence.

Irrelevant to my argument and intellectually dishonest. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we have to assume magic as a cause.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2011, 09:17:29 AM »
Quote
The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe.

Even when I was a kid, this part made no sense to me.  How is it "courage" to do something that well over two-thirds[1] of the world does anyway?
 1. I really don't know what the exact number is
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2011, 09:19:29 AM »
Quote
The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe.

Even when I was a kid, this part made no sense to me.  How is it "courage" to do something that well over two-thirds of the world does anyway?

Maybe it is "courage" to believe because there is something horrible about it? Does it matter how many people do it?
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10849
  • Darwins +280/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2011, 09:20:41 AM »
Quote
The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe.

Even when I was a kid, this part made no sense to me.  How is it "courage" to do something that well over two-thirds[1] of the world does anyway?
 1. I really don't know what the exact number is

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to say that atheists are so afraid of... well, I'm not sure exactly, but we're apparently afraid of something and don't believe in any deity because of it.
This ignores the fact that religions are the ones that promise eternal life and/or a special place in the universe.

Religion is just something people believe in because they're too afraid to deal with their own mortality and perceived meaninglessness.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline fungusdrool

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2011, 09:54:23 AM »
I think the attack on science is misguided.

Science, at its best, is a process.  It is a crucible.  It doesn't end with an answer.
It is the continual iterative process of refining knowledge using the best way humans have yet discovered to come to "truth" (e.g. posit, test, revise, repeat).

Science cannot be nearsighted--scientists can. 

Also, there are various alternatives to the universe being either eternal or having a first cause.  It is only our generally limited understanding of time itself which posits those two, extreme positions.

Offline CutePuppy

  • Unleashed Pet
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Beware Of Puppy
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2011, 10:47:02 AM »
This article is mostly garbage. I'm not even going to bother with the part where it goes after science except for 5 words: agnostic atheism. Look it up.

Quote
The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe.

Nothing courageous about this. It's weak and dishonest. Stop clinging to blind faith and have the courage and honesty to say "I don't know, but I'm not going to make up sh-t to feel more secure just because I don't know".

Quote
The belief in God in no more illogical than the belief in Extraterrestrial life forms. Nevertheless, despite the present lack of evidence for E.T. life forms, few scientists would outright dismiss them.

Unless those aliens are not part of this universe, can live outside time and space and created everything. Otherwise, the aliens we don't dismiss outright is because they could be just like us. And we have evidence that life like us can exist in this universe. No such evidence exists for this god creature. If this person can't even tell the difference, why bother with this nonsense? Honestly.

Quote
The atheist demands that the Deist, or theist, provide evidence for the existence of God.

Which they have failed to do over and over again. Over and over again.

Quote
So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless.

Which is all that theists and deists are capable of: making groundless statements.

Quote
Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental.

That's because they have no reason to. It's called being honest about not knowing something and not making sh-t up as an answer. Something deists and theists refuse to do.

Quote
Deists should feel free to openly state that there is absolutely no evidence against a Creator being, or a Creation, and that all skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data.

Which is more than what deists have ever shown. And there is absolutely no evidence for a creator being or creation, either. Just because there's no evidence against x, doesn't validate belief in x.

Quote
Deists believe there is something more; that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational.

It's not rational at all. It's weak and dishonest.

Quote
That "more" is God.

That more is simply a manifestation of your personal desires. Which is allowed by a weak and dishonest mind.

Quote
Deists are willing to wait for the answer and are keeping an open mind on the matter;

Except for the part where you believe god, whatever it is, is real. That's not being open minded at all. That's already assuming something is true.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2011, 01:13:37 PM »

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to say that atheists are so afraid of... well, I'm not sure exactly, but we're apparently afraid of something and don't believe in any deity because of it.

Well, yes I "get" that much.  But as a kid I didn't really understand that there were people that had no religious beliefs at all.  I was indoctrinated into the faith in a sort of "grass is green, water is wet" sort of way.  So this statement made as much sense as saying "I have the courage to believe that water is wet!"  It just seemed... hollow.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline SoulSaved

  • Novice
  • Posts: 2
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2011, 10:37:13 PM »
I think that it's hilarious that people are saying that the bible is so wrong and anyone could have written it. Did anyone read that the bible said that the earth was round and floated? This was centuries before scientists 'discovered' that the earth was round and you couldn't fall off the edge of the earth.
Job 26:10 <- Hebrew at the time interchanged the word circle for sphere!!
Isaiah 40:22
He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV)
Psalm 8:8 <- Says that there are paths of  the seas, referring to the ocean currents
Job 36:26-29 <-Water cycle is clearly explained even though it was not understood by scientists until 30 B.C. by an engineer!
 There are so many more references you can read here...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm

Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them! 

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2011, 10:52:59 PM »
^^^And Hindus have Vedic Science that says nuclear physics was in the Rig Veda which they say was written 3000 BC.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vedic_science_Mira.htm
Quote
There are three such qualities or gunas which are shared by all matter, living or non-living: the quality or guna of purity and calmness seeking higher knowledge (sattvic), the quality or guna of impurity, darkness, ignorance and inactivity (tamsic) and the quality or guna of activity, curiosity, worldly gain (rajasic). Modern atomic physics, the VHP's Guide claims, has confirmed the presence of these qualities in nature. The evidence? Physics shows that there are three atomic particles bearing positive, negative and neutral charges, which correspond to the three gunas!
Hindus claim there is lots of quantum theory stuff in the Vedas.

And Moslems have rationalizations about scientific secrets in the Koran.  For instance they can find the expanding universe and the ozone layer in the Koran.  They say Mohammed revealed the number of bones in the human body in a Hadis.

The Tao Te Ching says that at first everything was solid and it was the introduction of separation that made distinctions.  Clearly a description of the singularity breaking up in the Big Bang.

The Illiad predicts robots.

It's time for bed.  Excuse me for not detailing all that.  Another day, perhaps.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:18:01 PM by Historicity »

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2011, 11:19:59 PM »
I think that it's hilarious that people are saying that the bible is so wrong and anyone could have written it. Did anyone read that the bible said that the earth was round and floated? This was centuries before scientists 'discovered' that the earth was round and you couldn't fall off the edge of the earth.
Job 26:10 <- Hebrew at the time interchanged the word circle for sphere!!
Isaiah 40:22
He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV)
Psalm 8:8 <- Says that there are paths of  the seas, referring to the ocean currents
Job 36:26-29 <-Water cycle is clearly explained even though it was not understood by scientists until 30 B.C. by an engineer!
 There are so many more references you can read here...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm

Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!

Riiiight. The did indeed say the Earth was round. They said it was a DISK. Like a record. And it doesn't "float". Floating implies a gravitational force to overcome. The Earth drifts.

Nor is it "suspended" over anything, the exact words of the text.

It also says that the sky is water, being held back by "the firmament", whatever the hell THAT is supposed to be.

Let's see here, what other amazing scientific proclamations does it make?

Plants were made before the sun. What fed them? Brilliant science there.

Light, and night and day, was created before the stars. You know, those bright things that make light. And the big one we use to track day and night?

The moon is it's own light source. Negative. It reflects the light from the sun.

You can cure leprosy by rubbing bird blood on yourself.

Making two goats mate in front of striped sticks makes striped baby goats.

All animals were original herbivores. As in, they didn't eat meat. Riiight. Vampire Bats ate carrots, i guess.

Humans are made out of dirt.

Women are made out of spare ribs.

Animals talk.

There are dragons, unicorns, ogres, and cockatrices... No mention of a dinosaur.

God "opens a window to heaven" to make it rain. Amazing. And here I thought that shit came from clouds. Silly me.

God can flood the entire planet with salt water for 40 days, and stuff will still grow afterwards. Which is crazy, because normally when you sow the Earth with salt? Nothing can ever grow there again, until it's desalinated.

Speaking of, when the Earth is wiped clean of life in the flood, so are all the oxygen-producing plants. So Noah & company, and all 5 millions species of animal on his 450 foot wooden boat asphyxiated and died from the complete lack of oxygen, completely exterminating the last living things in the world. What a downer.

When Yahweh realized his tremendous fuck up and ressurected Noah and family and all the animals, he then had them repopulate the entire Earth via inbreeding. Which is cool, because Adam & Eve's kids had to start that snowball rolling, so it wasn't unprecedented.

Faithfull Christians are completely immune to all forms of poison.

People lived for like 900 years. By way of magic, of course.

Rabbits chew cud.

Insects have four legs.

Bats are birds.

Pi = 3 according to the bible. Close, but no cigar. Not even a cigarette. In fact, it deserves maybe a stick of gum. Sugarless, pre-chewed gum.

That's for starters. It barely scratches the surface; you can find bad science and retarded scientific claims on nearly every page in every single branch of science - biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, you name it.

I'm sick of typing this stupid shit out for you though, so I'm stopping here. You should have read this stuff for yourself. Don't run around making goofy claims about the bible's amazing scientific discoveries until you do a little research. What "science" is in the bible, is either laughably straight up WRONG, or is basic goddamn common sense, or is stuff the Roman Empire or the Greeks or even the Egyptians had already worked out.

If you really think ancient desert-wandering, camel-ass smelling Jewish rabbis had some kind of leg up on science over the Roman Empire, you're on some high powered crack my friend.



 

Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2011, 12:25:26 AM »
There are so many more references you can read here...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm

Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!

Godlessgeeks.com? SoulSaved is a drive-by POE.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2972
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2011, 12:44:26 AM »
Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!
Not so.  The concept of a spherical Earth, for instance, was already on the table around the time of Pythagoras and it's possible the idea is even older than that.  The Torah may predate Pythagoras, but a considerable amount of the Old Testament does not.  I don't think the OT authors made a unique scientific discovery; I think it more likely they used a concept someone else had already discovered.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2011, 01:25:27 AM »
There are so many more references you can read here...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm

Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!

Godlessgeeks.com? SoulSaved is a drive-by POE.

Oh, cool. I like it when the really dim-witted ones are drive-bys. That means they won't be hanging around sucking my brain juice out of the ether.  :)
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline pingnak

Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2011, 01:39:39 AM »
Matthew 4
 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Wow, a mountain so tall it overcame the curvature of the Earth.

The 'roundness' of the Earth was settled centuries before, even before the old testament stories were compiled, but even the CIRCUMFERENCE of the Earth, and the angle of the Earth's axis tilt was known long before Jesus was allegedly born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

So the New Testament of the Bible was written by semi-literate idiots.  Just like modern Christians are.  Carry on the tradition of being completely ignorant of all human knowledge but ONE book full of moronic drool.

Of course the old testament is overflowing with flat earth quotes, but nobody bothers to fix any of that, because they're a bunch of ignorant sheep-fuckers who really believed the earth was flat.


Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2011, 01:54:02 AM »
The bible also says that god created the earth first and then the stars on the fourth day of creation, even though scientifically speaking the earth was created about  10 billion years after the first stars formed. You want science. NASA's Hubble-Ultra Deep Space field contains a glimpse of galaxies that were formed 300 years after the big bag, and our own solar system is a little older than 4 billion years, yet according to this "scientific" book known as the bible;

Genesis:

Beginning of Creation

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

First Day

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

.....

Fourth Day

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

the earth was formed first.

Quote
Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!

I hope you come back wanting to talk more about these scientific "truths" you find in the bible. One very weak "scientific fact" in the bible isn't going to win anyone over. What else 'ya got?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 01:56:27 AM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1206
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2011, 09:01:32 AM »
There are dragons, unicorns, ogres, and cockatrices... No mention of a dinosaur.
If this one isn't a drive-by, I'm expecting the verse in Job about the giant beasts which of course means dinosaurs.
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +380/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2011, 09:03:55 AM »
http://www.deism.com/atheism.htm

If existence is a Creation,

Existence CAN'T be a "Creation," by definition.  Created by what--non-Existence?  Any proposed Creators would have to exist before they could think about creating anything, so they would be part of Existence.

who or what  (in the right mind) created it?

Since the Cosmos is self-evidently not anthropocentric in form and function (i.e.,  it's not All About Us), I think it is safe to rule out any of the humanly-imagined-and-worshiped deities.

If Existence is eternal, how did this happen?

That Existence is eternal is a self-evident and inescapable axiom.  Even theists and Deists must inevitably agree.  They simply posit that the fundamental element of Existence is their deity or deities of choice.  Non-existence does not exist.

Quote
The question that arises about nature is: is it a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature. The Deist will maintain that it is a creation, but Deists will differ as to degree of involvement on the part of the Creator in the process. The atheist will counter that it is either eternal, or accidental. The final resolution of this problem will eventually be up to science to settle.

Science has revealed a Cosmos that, if it is a designed artifact, serves a function that is presently unfathomable to us and unrelated to us.  Earth is not even a rounding error on the Cosmic scale.

To begin, let us look at nature as an ever changing and shifting painting.

Um...what?  No, I've got a better idea!  Let's look at it as an always-dancing building, or an incorporeal bowling ball!  Hmm...if nature is an ever-changing and shifting painting, then the Multiverse is clearly Hogwarts.

Science attempts to understand what the paint and canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes that are involved in the final product.

This is a narrow view of science.  Science also seeks to understand what the "picture" as a whole looks like.

But, what about the painter?

What "painter?"  This is a double-dose of question-begging.  First, to assume that there is a "painter" (and that the "ever-shifting colors" are not more comparable to the colors of an oil slick on water, i.e., not the product of deliberate creative effort), and then to assume that there's only one, privileging anthropomorphic monotheism over polytheism, pantheism, etc..

If one admits that nature is similar to a painting,

This is a devious slight-of-mind trick.  The analogy was originally given in the context of suggesting that science studies the Cosmos in a particular way (analyzing the brush strokes, etc., i.e. reductionism).  Now the context is being switched to emphasize that a painting is a designed artifact.  This is, again, question-begging, as it seeks to use the claim that the Cosmos is a designed artifact as a starting premise, when that is the question up for debate.  In other words, atheists would not agree to treat the Cosmos as "similar to a painting" if "created artifact of a single intelligence" is part of the analogy, otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.  The claim that the Cosmos is the product of any particular "God" (or "Gods") is what the believer needs to establish before they can persuade an atheist to join their ranks.

than it is not too far a leap to conclude that a painter exists, or at least existed at one time.

The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged.

Bollocks.  Find me a scientist or an atheist who claims that science is an authority that cannot be challenged.  And how would such a claim be an "appeal to modesty?"

Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems.

Starting with the fact that it's a fiction?

First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another,

First of all, whence cometh this automatic assumption of a big-G "God?"  How do we know there are not dozens or millions of "gods" (whatever those are)?  How do we know our Cosmos could not have been created by some other sort of entity, such as incredibly advanced aliens, or computer programmers (welcome to the Matrix)?

Second, science can limit the range of possible deities, i.e. ruling out ones like Zeus or Yahweh (assuming that their mythological narratives are the statements of what we would expect Universe to be like if they existed).  Science can tell us a great deal about the extent, age, and nature of the Cosmos and how it operates, which can rule out claims that anthropomorphic deities created it "for us" in any meaningful sense.

so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it.

What is this "God" thing of which you speak?  So long as it is a cognitive blank, like "blark" or "unie," scientists have no reason to consider the question of it's "existence" at all.

Quote
Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet. So to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy.

So?  This applies even more to "theology" than to science.  Science can at least demonstrate that it has learned something about the Cosmos.  What discoveries has theology made?

Quote
Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here?

What else have you got in mind?  What is your evidence?  We can conclude that "biology" (Alzheimer's disease, brain damage, etc.) can affect memory.  In the absence of evidence for whatever undefined not-biology you're implicitly talking about, there's nothing to discuss, and the most parsimonious provisional conclusion[1] is that "only biology is at work here."  The phrase "at work" presupposes that something definite is being done.  We have no evidence that any non-biological forces are involved in the process of memory.

Quote
No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist.

*sigh*  And an equilateral triangle is independent of material substance (it can be drawn in pencil, or made of wood, steel, aluminum, marshmallows, whatever), yet it exists.  Therefore, genies!  Right?

Quote
So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it. Science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg -- as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist.

Therefore, leprechauns and demons and channeled Atlantean sages and Lord Voldemort may exist.  Right?

Quote
If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach.

And this makes the claim that mermaids exist more reasonable, how?

Quote
So where does the Deist stand? The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe.

Ahahaha.  So...believing in unfounded claims is "courageous" somehow?  Do you get more courage-points for believing in something patently ridiculous, or is it only "courageous" to believe in something vague and undefined for which there is no evidence?  Since Deists agree with atheists on the non-existence of all gods but one, they're basically cowards too.  Are polytheists more ballsy, based on the number of deities believed in?

Quote
The belief in God in no more illogical than the belief in Extraterrestrial life forms.

Yes it is.  We have an existence proof of at least one planet inhabited by a technological civilization.  We also have observations of other planets.  We do not have any observations, or even a non-contradictory working definition, of a "god."

Quote
Nevertheless, despite the present lack of evidence for E.T. life forms, few scientists would outright dismiss them. If one accepts that E.T. life forms may exist, then one must conclude that such life forms could be far superior to us in knowledge and power -- if so, then God is in a sense, could be regarded as an E.T. life form as well.

More dishonest slight-of-mind trickery.  Here, the author is taking something we have good reason to consider probable, and which is fully compatible with our inventory of scientific knowledge (life forms on other planets) and trying to treat it as equivalent to something for which there is zero evidence, which is not defined well enough that the question "Is there evidence for it?" can even be addressed.

Quote
Or more accurately an Extradimensional life form.

"Accurately?"  Based on what?  What is your evidence that "God" is an "extradimensional" (whatever that means) life form, rather than a "dark matter" life form, or a "quantum non-local" life form, or an "extradimensional robot?"

Quote
Such a being, or beings, cannot be dismissed as impossibilities.

Such undefined chunks of bafflegab do not even rise to the level of being dismissed.  There's nothing, as yet, to even consider until the Deist can explain what it is they're talking about.  Deism is not even wrong.

Quote
The atheist demands that the Deist, or theist, provide evidence for the existence of God. They continually resort to logical fallacies of their own, for example, a common one is the Petitio principii (begging the question) fallacy; it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature.

Straw man fallacy.  There is no reason to believe in gods because we find no evidence of gods in nature.  This is the same basis on which a Deist is entitled to disbelieve in Krishna and leprechauns and faeries and Santa Claus.

Quote
But is this true? No. We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven.

What's a "god?"  What sort of evidence would validate or falsify the claim of its existence?

Quote
The atheist has no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental;

The word "universe" etymologically refers to the totality of all that exists, the whole shebang.  However, due to sloppy use of language, it's commonly used to refer to "that which emerged from the Big Bang," excluding anything that didn't, like "branes," other "universes," etc..  So now the term "multiverse" is used to refer to the whole shebang in hypotheses that propose a greater spacetime manifold of which our Big Bang Cosmos is only a part.  For purposes of clarity, I will use the term "Universe," capital-U, no "the," to refer to the sum total of all that exists.

Defined thusly, "Universe" would be eternal as a metaphysical necessity, whether it contained one or more "gods" or not.  Universe would include any gods, extradimensional/spiritual/whatever realms they might live in, any lesser "demigods" ("angels" "demons" "faeries" "sprites" "orbs" "djinn" "leprechauns" "[insert favorite Invisible Magic Person type here]") and so on.  Even if our Cosmos (that which emerged from our Big Bang) is not eternal, sooner or later if we keep asking "So what created that?" we'll get to something eternal, whether it's "gods," "the spacetime manifold," or something else.

However, we have no reason to assume that the "foundation" of Existence is a "god" rather than something else.  To the contrary, Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument" (that simple things are ontologically prior to complex things and come first in temporal sequence) provides good reason to reject anthropomorphic personal deities as candidates for the ultimate "Ground of Being."

Quote
they are assuming that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact.

At least there's such a thing as "scientific fact."  Theologians assume their speculation somehow equals fact, when they have yet to demonstrate the validity of even one "theological fact."

Quote
Obviously there is a great gap between speculation and fact to the rational mind.

Well, sure.  That's why we atheists think theology is a load of old cobblers.

Quote
We have the painting,

No, we don't have a "painting."  We have something that some people (theists and Deists) think is a painting, but which shows many signs of being a purely natural phenomenon.  The issue of whether the Cosmos is a designed artifact or not is the question at issue.

Quote
but to dismiss that there is a painter is illogical, unless there is evidence that it is either an eternal painting or an accident.

False dichotomy.  It could be something else, like "the inevitable manifestation of the generalized operational principle described by the Grand Unification Equation."

Quote
So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless.

May we assume correctly that Deists believe in faeries, djinn, ghosts, Chupacabras, honest politicians and Jedi because they can't prove such things don't exist?

Quote
Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental.

The eternal existence of Universe (as I use the term) is axiomatic.  Deists cannot escape it.  Rather, they just claim that a particular entity in Universe (their anthropomorphic "God") created all the rest.  The believer in "God"/gods does have the burden of proof, because they're the one claiming to have knowledge of an entity they want added to our inventory of knowledge about reality.  The exact same principle applies to demonologists and believers in Loch Ness Monsters, Bigfoots, Yetis, Chupacabras, anal-probing space aliens, and so on.

Quote
Often this tactic works, the believer will then try to make an argument for God, only to have the atheist demand that the believer first define God in some clear manner. Once the believer makes this mistake, he loses the debate.

Ahahahahahahaha!

So it's a mistake for the believer to specify what they're talking about?  Well, OK.  Honesty and clarity are only bad debate tactics when your claims are invalid.

Quote
We are still in the process of understanding the painting, so trying to define the painter is doomed to failure;

Actually, we know there isn't a "painter" because of quasion particles.  What's a quasion particle, you ask?  Oh, no no no!  It's not up to me to define what a quasion is!  It's up to you to prove they don't exist!  Which (much to my convenience) is rather difficult when you don't know what they're supposed to be, and hence, what sort of evidence would support or contradict the proposition that they exist.

Until believers can define what "god" means, it's as meaningless and referent-free as "quasion," and no more worthy of consideration.  Not.  Even.  Wrong.

Quote
the believer must recognize this tactic and avoid it.

So believers have to play their cards close to the vest and pretend they have no idea what "god" is supposed to mean...

Quote
Deists should feel free to openly state that there is absolutely no evidence against a Creator being, or a Creation,

...until it serves them to cash in on the cultural privileging of Abrahamic monotheism to smuggle in the assumption of monotheism...

Quote
and that all skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data.

Quite a lot of data, actually.  We can accurately model the behavior of the Cosmos going back to 10-34 seconds after the start of the Big Bang.  That's a rather tiny gap to hide a "God of the gaps" in.  And this, in comparison to theologians, offering theological speculation on zero data.

Quote
Deists believe there is something more;

On what basis?  Do Deists think that anyone can just arbitrarily assert the existence of whatever "something more" they like and it's "logical" to believe in it because scientists are not omniscient?

Quote
that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational. That "more" is God.

Which of the following statements would a Deist disagree with, and on what basis:

"That 'more' is Anubis."
"That 'more' is faeries."
"That 'more' is wizards."
"That 'more' is Yahweh, who looks forward to throwing Deists in Hell when they die."
"That 'more' is the Force."

Quote
Deists are willing to wait for the answer and are keeping an open mind on the matter;

No they're not.  They're claiming they already have the answer--that "God" (of which there is only one, and who is probably male, but can also shape-change into an undefinable fog when it's convenient for the Deist) exists and created the Cosmos.

Quote
it is the atheists, who fear waiting.

Awww, geez, Scoob!  I'm sc-c-c-c-caaaared! I don't want to wait until we find out that "God" is the creepy old groundskeeper! *eyeroll*

Quote
Simply put there is no evidence against God,

No evidence against what?  Sorry, I couldn't catch the meaning of that last word.  Also, there's no evidence that all Deists aren't future child molesters.  Should we lock them up?

Quote
nor is there evidence against a Creation [design].

Oh, really?  Form follows function.  The more capable the design team, the more elegantly and efficiently their product serves its purpose and thus, the more apparent their purpose becomes.  It's not hard to deduce what an F-22 is "for," especially if you see it in action.  Looking at the Cosmos in action, what is of "for?"  What are neutrinos "for?"  Pi mesons?  Anti-protons?  Red supergiant stars?  Black holes?

Quote
The burden of proof does not lie on the open mind, but on the closed dogmatic mind which assumes that we already know all there is to know.

Find just one popular defender of atheism who claims that we already know all there is to know. 
 1. All scientific conclusions are provisional and open to revision if/when more and better evidence comes in.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 11:08:40 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2011, 09:11:32 AM »
But the Bible reveals evolution long before Lamarck!!!

That is not me exaggerating.

The text is:
    Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

You see?  The prophet says we have a genetic relationship to the dinosaurs and birds and such.

I repeat that is not me exaggerating and distorting. 

The is from Stuart Litzak and A. Wayne Senzee  in their Toward a New Brain: Evolution and the Human Mind (1985).

Don't laugh.  It is sold at the bookstore of the University of Melbourne in Australia:
http://www.bookshop.unimelb.edu.au/plantsinprint/p?9780139260490

The premise of the book is that Darwin was a "dapper gentleman" who was too elegant and fussy to have ever consulted farmers or other animal breeders.  If he had he would have found how they nurtured weak animals and generations of nurturing had strengthened the species as they passed the strength and health they acquired to future generations.  Simply, Lamarck was right, Darwin was wrong.  They give many examples and for those people who insist that evolution ain't no how true unless you can take it back to the origins of the universe, well, Litvak and Senzee have a Lamarckian explanation of the first seconds of the Big Bang.

My (muttered) review as I read this book was, "Hippy rhymes with dippy."

Quote from: SoulSaved
Remember, the bible was written thousands of years ago before scientists 'discovered' all of these things, even though it was right in front of them!

Yes!  According to Litvak and Senzee they could have discovered evolution.




Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2011, 10:35:36 AM »
I checked the original link and it is on a Californian atheist site apparently stored as an example for ridicule.  The original poster there says she is a nurse in Canada.

SoulSaved says she is Canadian.

The original post got its info from this article (Click in the image):

I couldn't pass up showing you their image.

That site is also Canadian.

(There's something in the maple syrup.)


Quote
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

I have seen at several sites that Hebrew at the time didn't have a separate word for sphere. That would make in the fault of the KJV translators.  But:
Quote
Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house,

The word there is "kadur".  Hebrew did have a word for sphere separate from circle.


Offline pingnak

Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2011, 02:54:11 PM »
Is it OK to use the Pink Floyd 'Dark Side of the Moon' album cover prominently as part of a religious nutjob website?


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2011, 03:01:29 PM »
^^^Good catch.  I didn't notice it.

I was distracted by Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Offline SoulSaved

  • Novice
  • Posts: 2
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2011, 03:08:16 PM »
How can anyone prove that the sun and earth were made billions of years ago? Were you there? Does science prove evolution? No, it's a theory. So before anyone says how old the earth is and  that science proved this and that, find some real proof because otherwise you are staging your arguments over nothing and you yourself is a sheep following someone who decided that hydrogen and helium just poofed itself into a sun... That sounds completely reasonable.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2011, 03:17:41 PM »
How can anyone prove that the sun and earth were made billions of years ago?

Do the research.  Look up books.

Quote
Were you there?


No.  Good thing we have evidence that the sun and earth were formed billions of years ago.


Quote
Does science prove evolution? No, it's a theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

--
systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theoryis a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
--


Quote
So before anyone says how old the earth is and  that science proved this and that, find some real proof because otherwise you are staging your arguments over nothing and you yourself is a sheep following someone who decided that hydrogen and helium just poofed itself into a sun... That sounds completely reasonable.

And I'm sure that believing in the bible has nothing to do with being a sheep following someone who decided that  a magic man poofed a sun into existence.


By the way, nobody claims that "hydrogen and helium just poofed itself into a sun".  Do the research first.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1775
  • Darwins +75/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2011, 03:34:01 PM »
Welcome, SoulSaved.

So before anyone says how old the earth is and  that science proved this and that, find some real proof because otherwise you are staging your arguments over nothing and you yourself is a sheep following someone who decided that hydrogen and helium just poofed itself into a sun... That sounds completely reasonable.

Ever hear of gravity? Or stellar fusion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fusion

Aaron123 already addressed your other ludicrous strawmen. If you want people to actually take you seriously here, you need to educate yourself a bit.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2011, 03:34:54 PM »
How can anyone prove that the sun and earth were made billions of years ago?

From Wikipedia: "The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed.[89] Solar formation is dated in two ways: the Sun's current main sequence age, determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, is thought to be about 4.57 billion years.[90] This is in close accord with the radiometric date of the oldest Solar System material, at 4.567 billion years ago.[91][92]"

The article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

From Universe Today: "They use a technique called radiometric dating. Since the decay rate of elements is very well known, they just calculated the ratio of uranium to lead, for example, in a meteorite sample. By comparing these ratios to the known decay rate of uranium, scientists are able to calculate when the meteorite formed.

And this is how we know how old the Sun is."

The aricle: http://www.universetoday.com/18237/how-old-is-the-sun/

Does science prove evolution? No, it's a theory.

Yes it does prove evolution. That's why it's called a "theory" in scientific terms. See what Aaron linked.

So before anyone says how old the earth is and  that science proved this and that, find some real proof because otherwise you are staging your arguments over nothing and you yourself is a sheep following someone who decided that hydrogen and helium just poofed itself into a sun... That sounds completely reasonable.

There's whole mountains of proof.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Perhaps you should present a single bit of evidence that refutes what the entire scientific community already accepts as true and has proven over and over again. That's where people like you consistently fail.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline pingnak

Re: Atheism's Weakness
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2011, 03:56:08 PM »
And here I thought atheism's weakness was chocolate.

Though mine's those little chocolate chip cookies with ice cream sandwiched between.  Trader Joe's sells 'em with little chocolate chips rolled in, around the edges.