Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:40 AM

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all.

View Post

That’s all well and good, but positing a “natural, unknown process(es) that started it all” is opinion, a priory thought, and presupposition; therefore explains nothing at all. It’s basically a “faith” statement. Further, where did this natural process come from? “Who”, or “what” started it? Where did “Who”, or “what” get the materials to start it?

This leads to the conclusion that the questions still have not been close to being answered, and atheism still has been found bereft of foundation.

There are several hypotheses with how the big bang started. Ultimately it is an unknown and may always be so. Perhaps many take solace from these hypotheses, one that jumps out at me is from the video on this forum from the 'universe from nothing' thread if you can remember that. In that video some astronomer or physicist talks about how the universe is flat and a flat universe can be created out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations. In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.

View Post

Again, this is an atheistic “faith” based opinion. And I have no problem with atheistic “faith” based opinions; but they are not science, just opinion.

If you want to discuss the merits of the big bang beyond an abstract state perhaps a new thread is in order.

View Post

If you read back through, you’ll notice that I brought this up a number of times. In fact, many of the points you’re forwarding here are better suited for a different thread. And, I believe they would be fruitful threads with good discussion.

To be brief the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the homology of the universe, and redshift with Hubble's equation. There are more subtle evidences, like the distribution of population I and II stars within certain types of galaxies and quasars, but this could be the result of something other than the big bang, but it does co-inside with the big bang theory.

View Post

This evidence works just as well for the Creation origins, and in no way assists the atheists origins foundation.

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe,

View Post

A natural “only” universe is an assumption, and therefore ill equipped as an explanation for the atheists origins foundation. As is the balance of your post (other than your appeal to new threads, which is a good idea), and therefore, I didn’t want to waste time (which I don’t have right now) answering it.

#62 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:58 AM

A natural “only” universe is an assumption, and therefore ill equipped as an explanation for the atheists origins foundation. As is the balance of your post (other than your appeal to new threads, which is a good idea), and therefore, I didn’t want to waste time (which I don’t have right now) answering it.

View Post


A natural "only" universe isn't an assumption. Natural phenomena are witnessed and studied all the time. Evidence for natural phenomena is abundant. A universe containing or beginning with the supernatural is an assumption. There is no evidence for supernatural phenomena, and when alleged supernatural phenomena is studied a natural explanation is found.

#63 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:04 AM

But I think that no matter what the answer is, the atheist will always look to nature to try and understand where we came from. And this will be achieved through utilizing the scientific method.

View Post

Hi Darkness 45,

Two things are clear to me from your post. One, you don't want to get bogged down arguing the evidence, so I won't. The other is that you rely on the logical methods of science for your worldview. That's fine.

However, for one who claims this evidential logical approach, your post is full of logical inconsistencies.

You are "looking to nature" for your answers. Nature is everything and every phenomena by definition. As an atheist your philosophy is clearly philosophical naturalism. That's fine also.

However, you really need to understand, that the only reason that you cannot see evidence for God, is that you have defined it/Him out of your logical process. If God performed a phenomenon, the phenomenon would be natural under your philosophy. It is simply a matter of definition.

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all.


Yes, that is usually what atheists would say. Now just think about what you are saying for a moment. How can a natural, unknown process(es) start the Big Bang if nature did not exist before the BB? Now remember, nature is all material things and all the phenomena within the known universe. That is the definition. This is a true logical dilemma for you to deal with, and it is not a false dilemma.

In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.


Yes, and the theists makes this claim based on faith. Likewise the atheist must make his claim on faith in this "unknown" entity. Faith is belief in something that is unseen and unobservable. If you as an atheist believe that something started the BB then you have faith in that something.

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe, scientists can do this for the origin of life as well as the origin of the universe.


Again, you are clearly affirming your reliance on philosophical naturalism to provide all the answers. That's OK. But it requires faith.

There are problems and questions in this field to be sure, but this branch is in its infancy and scientists are learning more and getting closer all the time.


Again in the above statement, you are exhibiting your faith.

For the basic evidence of evolution there is the fossil record, we have yet to find a confirmed, out of place fossil, like bunnies in the Cambrian.


I hope you will learn that this is a true logical fallacy of false dilemma. We also do not find bunnies in the middle of the oceans or large lakes. Why? Geography, not Geology. You see, all the Cambrian creatures are aquatic. Bunnies generally don't live in water. The answer to you false dilemma is one of location, not strata.

At the heart of atheism is really a disbelief in a God(s). It is neither a philosophy nor a theology.


Well certainly it is not a theology. And technically, you are correct that it is not a philosophy. However, it is the philosophy of naturalism which leads to the disbelief in gods. So the worldview of philosophical naturalism brings the conclusion of atheism. But I have shown you above how irrational that is, because by definition, nature does not exist until after/during the BB.

I would say the strongest evidence for atheism comes from the fact we have never objectively verified anything beyond the natural.

Again, this is simply a matter of definition. You have chosen to define everything and every phenomenon as natural. There is no possibility of the supernatural by definition. Theists do not accept this definition.

And psychology has shown us that eye-witness accounts are unreliable as well as our own memory.


Really? Do you realize what you are saying? Every scientific experiment is an eye-witness account. Every scientific experiment relies on the scientist's memory. Every peer reviewed paper is eye witness testimony. So by your very own logic, your faith in philosophical naturalism is unreliable. I agree.

Again, the evidence for this is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of the supernatural.

And again, the only reason you cannot see the evidence is you have defined it out.

Let me give you and example. If I ask you to give me the answer to 2+2, what would you say?

Wait, I haven't defined the parameters of your answer yet. The answer cannot be 4. Now I have given you the definition of parameters on your answer.

Now certainly, you can provide me with a myriad of answers here, but none of them would be right, because you can't answer 4.

This is what philosophical naturalism does. If nature is all that there is, and all that is done, then by definition there is no possibility of the supernatural. Hence, you don't see any evidence of God. He is "4". Your philosophy prevents you from seeing the evidence.

#64 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:35 AM

Excellent...

Gotta think outside the box.

Peace

View Post

Mastering equivocation and avoiding plain implications by pandering to absurdity rather than allowing an example to be used based on its plainest sense is truly a deceptive art form, isn't it?

It's sad knowing how many equivocal arguments we have to wade through with atheists when only a small minority are actually meant as witty levity (which I may give to Jason78 in this case because of past interactions) but still the bulk however, is meant to serve as intellectual distractions to sway the inattentive. :(

#65 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:57 PM

To apply this to what we are talking about though, I think that sometimes a creationist thinks an evolutionist is equivocating and really the evolutionist is still trying to explain using his base.

View Post

I've been looking for this base as long as I've been interacting with atheists. Can you please enlighten us with the foundational truism of atheists so we can examine it? Please don't cop out with the lame 'Lack of belief' bit because we are looking for the base. You know the foundational principle that the truth of atheism hinges on so it can be tested to see if it actually makes sense of the world.

#66 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:09 PM

It would appear that you guys don't really understand the basic tenets of atheism. I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

#67 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:31 PM

It would appear that you guys don't really understand the basic tenets of atheism.  I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

View Post


Right, you don't believe in God, or gods, but that still doesn't change the fact the majority of you hold the same World Veiw. You cannot escape the obvious. Try as you may, you will fail each and everytime. Why? Because you have blatantly shown that your World Veiw is almost 99.9% exactly the same as other Atheist.

If you say that the only thing you believe in is... a none belief in God, or gods, then you are trying to make the claim that you never think about or share the same views as anyone.

We understand what an Atheist is, that you do not believe in God or gods. The fact remains though, that the majority of you hold the EXACT same world view.

#68 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:36 PM

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods. That they automatically don't believe in anything else. Which is what they are trying to get at. Strangely.

Problem is...

1. 99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution
2. 99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang
3. 99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

#69 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:47 PM

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

Problem is...

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution
2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang
3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

View Post

But that was never claimed. Atheists can believe whatever they want, but atheism, in and of itself, only professes a disbelief in the supernatural -- it doesn't say anything for origins or science or anything like that.

#70 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:02 PM

But that was never claimed.  Atheists can believe whatever they want, but atheism, in and of itself, only professes a disbelief in the supernatural -- it doesn't say anything for origins or science or anything like that.

View Post


Okay, but that still doesn't negate the fact that 99.9% of atheist share the exact same World Veiw. So, your point is absolutely moot.

#71 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:05 PM

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

Problem is...

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution
2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang
3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.

For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

View Post



Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

I would then have to ask the question: Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

#72 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

I would then have to ask the question:  Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

View Post



Also, Martemius why are you trying to make the illogical claim that Atheist do not share the same World Veiws, because they do????

Why would anyone try to disprove what is taken as common knowledge??? The connection is simply obvious... plain as day obvious.

#73 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:23 PM

Not all atheists have the same world view, this is just pure ignorance on your part. When it comes to science, most atheists agree with each other, this is true. But this really doesn't say much, as most theists agree with these atheists. When you get out of science atheists vary dramatically in their beliefs and world views.

View Post


When it comes to science, that's what I strictly said Darkness and YOU KNOW THAT!!!

I would like an apology from you.

#74 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:24 PM

Also if an atheist claims that since they don't believe in God, or gods.  That they automatically don't believe in anything else.  Which is what they are trying to get at.  Strangely.

Problem is...

1.  99.9% of atheist believe in Evolution
2.  99.9% of atheist believe in the Big Bang
3.  99.9% of atheist believe the same scientific theories.


For an atheist to arrogantly claim that they only believe that God or gods do not exist, is simply incorrect at best.

View Post


Look Darkness LOOK.

#75 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:26 PM

Martemius is trying to dispute this over and over... trying to disprove it, but unfortunately that would be impossible.

I would then have to ask the question:  Martemius, why in the world are you trying to claim that you have absolutely no World Veiw, as it is shared with millions of Atheist world wide???????????

View Post

I'm not proposing that I have no world view, or that I have no opinion on the validity of the standard models of cosmology or biology -- I'm saying that they're very much distinct from my atheism (as they are for all atheists).

And I might suggest that the specific views that you mention, such as that the big bang actually happened, are the logical result of scientific inquiry that isn't directed towards validating a pre-determined answer, such as that god did it all 6000 years ago (of course, a moderate percentage of religious people accept the big bang, evolution, etc. too -- I'm not denying that).

#76 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:28 PM

I'm not proposing that I have no world view, or that I have no opinion on the validity of the standard models of cosmology or biology -- I'm saying that they're very much distinct from my atheism (as they are for all atheists).

And I might suggest that the specific views that you mention, such as that the big bang actually happened, are the logical result of scientific inquiry that isn't directed towards validating a pre-determined answer, such as that god did it all 6000 years ago (of course, a moderate percentage of religious people accept the big bang, evolution, etc. too -- I'm not denying that).

View Post


This has nothing to do with what I said. Most atheist agree on the science, and YOU TOO, know this. It's very obvious that it's what I'm talking about.

The way Atheist agree, There is a connection, and it's in the scientific theories that they agree on.

#77 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:33 PM

This has nothing to do with what I said.  Most atheist agree on the science, and YOU TOO, know this.  It's very obvious that it's what I'm talking about.

View Post

I'm not denying that most atheists agree on science stuff.

I AM denying that a statement of belief in atheism is related to belief in various scientific claims, such as that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

#78 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:34 PM

I'm not denying that most atheists agree on science stuff.

I AM denying that a statement of belief in atheism is related to belief in various scientific claims, such as that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

View Post


Did I say that was the connection? No I did not.

#79 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:42 PM

Did I say that was the connection?  No I did not.

View Post

There appears to have been a bad communication somewhere along the line here.

I was never denying that the vast majority of atheists accept evolution, cosmology and whatnot. I was denying that those beliefs are a basis of atheism, or are inherently tied to atheism.

#80 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:44 PM

I don't view science as a "world view", so I thought you meant "world view" in a more general sense, it was a mistake on my part. But what do you think about the theists who do side with the atheists in their scientific "world view"?

Note, the majority of theists do accept evolution and the big bang as a scientific fact.

View Post


Because, the Big Bang, and Theory of evolution are widley accepted as the norm, and by the majority, even though they severley lack scientific evidence.

Theist accept it, because it is politically correct to. Atheist are more prone to believe these theories, because:

1. They don't require God.
2. Why would they believe God when it doesn't require God?
3. Atheist don't believe God, especially given the reason that beyond the scientific realm, you cannot touch, feel, or see God.

Believeing in God is a matter of Faith, and it's a Faith in such models of Evolution, and the Big Bang that further strengthen atheist claims that none required God.

Do you see? I know you and every other atheist does. Because they do not require God, it provides further evidence that there is no God.

You can claim that your 2 beloved theories are facts, but you will need to show it as fact in the appropriate thread, as I will not debate it in this thread, because in others there is opposing evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users