This is the second in my series of debates that I had decided were a waste of time in my late teens, as there can be no sound argument formed. The basic point that I make is that atheism is equally as illogical as theism. While I believe that all people should be free to believe what ever they want in this regard, atheists who claim that their beliefs are based on logic are just as annoying as door knocking bible bashers.
Of course there are different kinds of atheists. A large proportion fit this label simply because they do not personally believe in any divine power. In this thread I am referring to argumentative atheists who claim that theists (and to some extent agnostics) are entirely irrational in their beliefs. This group of people believe that science has provided them with a rational alternative to theology. They pull together a group of theories (such as the big bang theory, carbon dating theory and theory of evolution; just as examples, there are of course many more) and believe that this ‘proves’ that the universe is the way that it is by way of sheer luck, or extreme probability.
My problem with sets of beliefs as above (there are probably even more variations in atheist belief than there are in theist belief, so I am trying to be careful to avoid specific generalisations) is that most if not all of these theories have been formed using reductive rather deductive reasoning. They are relied upon as being fact until someone comes up with a ‘better’ idea.
There are also areas of wild inconsistency between these theories which are pulled together to form ‘fact’. Where these have been spotted by the scientific community, there has perhaps been some research, or just as likely, a ‘band-aid’ fix has been proposed which makes everything seem nice and logical again.
I will give one example, just to get the ball rolling. Theories around evolution will tell you that there was some sort of cataclysmic event which eventually wiped out the dinosaurs. It is proposed that a large meteor hit the earth and sent a cloud of dust into the sky, blocking out the sun for a thousand years. This, of course, had the effect of killing most plant life (which relies on photosynthesis to grow). Without plant life, the food chain was destroyed from the bottom up. However, scientific theories on evolution also rely upon the ‘fact’ that some large species which are present today have survived since before this cataclysmic event. For the most part, these species are predatory fish and reptiles (Great White Shark, Crocodiles etc). But the claim is also made that the Rhinoceros has survived since that time. If plant life was pretty much wiped out for a thousand years, can anyone tell me how a large land based herbivore such as the Rhinoceros is still here for us to shoot at and wipe out our selves several million years later? (roll out the band-aid responses)
We then move onto the fact that Theists can also use the theories presented by science in their version of what scripture actually means. For example, feigeleh argues that scripture not only supports, but teaches evolution as having been on of God’s mechanisms.
Another example of ‘scientific fact’ being used incorrectly by atheists in their arguments is the Big Bang Theory. First of all, it is only a THEORY. It is based loosely on the calculated trajectories of major celestial bodies (i.e., they all came from the same place). Secondly, even if the Big Bang did occur, how does this disprove the existence of a God? Whatever existed before the space/time continuum that we are part of is well beyond our knowledge or comprehension. While this, of course, does not prove that there is a God, it also does not prove that the universe suddenly exploded into existence from nothing as atheists would argue. Atheists generally argue that the Onus is on theists to prove that God does exist, however, if an atheist is arguing that God does not exist based on scientific fact, the onus is firmly on them to prove, using a sound argument that existence has been formed without divine intervention. The onus is on them to prove what DID cause the Big Bang in the absence of a ‘God’ of some sort.
The form of argumentative atheism that I am discussing relies upon a set of beliefs about what the universe is, where it came from, how life began and has changed over time which is based on theories which have no more tangible proof than the theologies of scripture. The fundamental question that I am asking is ‘is atheism actually a logical belief, or does it require brain-washing in the education system similar to that which scriptural belief does’. I personally think that argumentative atheism is totally illogical, but I am open to any one willing to present a sound argument to support it.
As a parting thought, Savant once said that he does not believe in God because there is no proof. When asked to disprove God’s existence he suggested that I disprove that the world is controlled by invisible pink unicorns. This is actually easy, as no creature can be both invisible and pink. (hint, someone could invite Savant to join this forum if he has not already done so……..)
Of course there are different kinds of atheists. A large proportion fit this label simply because they do not personally believe in any divine power. In this thread I am referring to argumentative atheists who claim that theists (and to some extent agnostics) are entirely irrational in their beliefs. This group of people believe that science has provided them with a rational alternative to theology. They pull together a group of theories (such as the big bang theory, carbon dating theory and theory of evolution; just as examples, there are of course many more) and believe that this ‘proves’ that the universe is the way that it is by way of sheer luck, or extreme probability.
My problem with sets of beliefs as above (there are probably even more variations in atheist belief than there are in theist belief, so I am trying to be careful to avoid specific generalisations) is that most if not all of these theories have been formed using reductive rather deductive reasoning. They are relied upon as being fact until someone comes up with a ‘better’ idea.
There are also areas of wild inconsistency between these theories which are pulled together to form ‘fact’. Where these have been spotted by the scientific community, there has perhaps been some research, or just as likely, a ‘band-aid’ fix has been proposed which makes everything seem nice and logical again.
I will give one example, just to get the ball rolling. Theories around evolution will tell you that there was some sort of cataclysmic event which eventually wiped out the dinosaurs. It is proposed that a large meteor hit the earth and sent a cloud of dust into the sky, blocking out the sun for a thousand years. This, of course, had the effect of killing most plant life (which relies on photosynthesis to grow). Without plant life, the food chain was destroyed from the bottom up. However, scientific theories on evolution also rely upon the ‘fact’ that some large species which are present today have survived since before this cataclysmic event. For the most part, these species are predatory fish and reptiles (Great White Shark, Crocodiles etc). But the claim is also made that the Rhinoceros has survived since that time. If plant life was pretty much wiped out for a thousand years, can anyone tell me how a large land based herbivore such as the Rhinoceros is still here for us to shoot at and wipe out our selves several million years later? (roll out the band-aid responses)
We then move onto the fact that Theists can also use the theories presented by science in their version of what scripture actually means. For example, feigeleh argues that scripture not only supports, but teaches evolution as having been on of God’s mechanisms.
Another example of ‘scientific fact’ being used incorrectly by atheists in their arguments is the Big Bang Theory. First of all, it is only a THEORY. It is based loosely on the calculated trajectories of major celestial bodies (i.e., they all came from the same place). Secondly, even if the Big Bang did occur, how does this disprove the existence of a God? Whatever existed before the space/time continuum that we are part of is well beyond our knowledge or comprehension. While this, of course, does not prove that there is a God, it also does not prove that the universe suddenly exploded into existence from nothing as atheists would argue. Atheists generally argue that the Onus is on theists to prove that God does exist, however, if an atheist is arguing that God does not exist based on scientific fact, the onus is firmly on them to prove, using a sound argument that existence has been formed without divine intervention. The onus is on them to prove what DID cause the Big Bang in the absence of a ‘God’ of some sort.
The form of argumentative atheism that I am discussing relies upon a set of beliefs about what the universe is, where it came from, how life began and has changed over time which is based on theories which have no more tangible proof than the theologies of scripture. The fundamental question that I am asking is ‘is atheism actually a logical belief, or does it require brain-washing in the education system similar to that which scriptural belief does’. I personally think that argumentative atheism is totally illogical, but I am open to any one willing to present a sound argument to support it.
As a parting thought, Savant once said that he does not believe in God because there is no proof. When asked to disprove God’s existence he suggested that I disprove that the world is controlled by invisible pink unicorns. This is actually easy, as no creature can be both invisible and pink. (hint, someone could invite Savant to join this forum if he has not already done so……..)