List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

Do you base all your conclusions on observation of physical events?

do you start all your posts with redundant questions?

It is very significant that you regard the question as redundant. I leave others to reach their own conclusions about your physicalist assumptions…

generally speaking nothing requires an explanation.

Therefore, in your view, everything is self-explanatory!

Which is more effective: random accidents or intelligence?
that’s irrelevent. We’re pondering which is more true, not which is more effective

Ever heard of the criterion of fertility?

 

[liquidpele]

If the universe were chaotic you wouldn’t be here!

You’re essentially saying that because a tornado exists, you can’t have calm weather elsewhere.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin;5646133:

The cause of a random mutation is not known and that is why it is unpredictable.

Are we now talking semantics? I asked about the processes, are you saying they are unknown?

 

[shoewindow3000]

The name of this thread is “List of common fallacies of Atheists.”

Therefore, I shall name one:

They don’t believe God exists.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re essentially saying that because a tornado exists, you can’t have calm weather elsewhere.

There is a slight difference, I’m afraid. In a chaotic universe there is no order** anywhere**…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5649489:

Are we now talking semantics? I asked about the processes, are you saying they are unknown?

Why do you keep changing the subject? We were discussing random mutations? Do you or do you not accept the fact that they are random and individually unpredictable? Let’s get this straight for once and for all without any more red herrings…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin;5651150:

Why do you keep changing the subject? We were discussing random

mutations? Do you or do you not accept the fact that they are random and individually unpredictable? Let’s get this straight for once and for all without any more red herrings…

Red herrings, you have not answered one question honestly…

The are random, however they also follow fixed processes (which we know and understand). I.E.They are random like rolling a dice, you always get a number between one and six. So yes the result is random but the outcome is not limitless.

In other words the out come is not sheer “chance”, but variation. Descent with modification. Like i asked you before which you failed to answer, do you think is sheer “CHANCE” that every school kid in a class is not the same height, or is it in fact inevitable? I bet you don’t, though this is how silly you sound when you say such things.

 

[liquidpele]

There is a slight difference, I’m afraid. In a chaotic universe there is no order** anywhere**…

I think you’re just making up your own definitions at this point.

 

[yankee_doodle]

It is very significant that you regard the question as redundant. I leave others to reach their own conclusions about your physicalist assumptions…

redundant in the sense that you seem to be asking the same questions over and over

Therefore, in your view, everything is self-explanatory!

no, I just said not everything requires an explanation.

Ever heard of the criterion of fertility?

that’s an absurd analogy

 

[john_doran]

Wow… I think you just did to statistics what ID does to evolution. Congrats.

i assume you’re suggesting that i’ve done something wrong, but it’s hard to tell when all you’re doing is dropping pithy one-liners…

care to elaborate?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5651784:

                 Originally Posted by **Charles Darwin**

                 [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5651150#post5651150)                 
             *Why do you keep changing the subject? We were discussing **random*** mutations? Do you or do you not accept the fact that they are **random** and individually **unpredictable**? Let's get this straight for once and for all without any more red herrings...

Red herrings, you have not answered one question honestly…

I shall leave others to decide whether your allegations are true.

They are random, however they also follow fixed processes (which we know and understand). I.E.They are random like rolling a dice, you always get a number between one and six. So yes the result is random but the outcome is not limitless.

Thank you for admitting they are random. The fact that the outcome is not limitless does not alter the fact that they are random.

In other words the outcome is not sheer “chance”, but variation. Descent with modification. Like i asked you before which you failed to answer

, do you think is sheer “CHANCE” that every school kid in a class is not the same height, or is it in fact inevitable? I bet you don’t, though this is how silly you sound when you say such things. I don’t remember you asking about school kids but in any case I have made it quite clear that the element of chance does not imply that **every event that follows **is due to chance. If it were, evolution would been totally haphazard. For the atheist Chance means:

1. The origin of life was fortuitous and purposeless.
2. Evolution occurred as the result of random mutations being converted by natural selection into a means of development.
3. The outcome of evolution was not intended but due to Chance and Necessity.
   N.B. For the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance. For the theist evolution would have occurred without an element of Chance because there is evidence that it was planned and directed. We do not know to what extent random mutations really were random… l

 

[tonyrey]

…redundant in the sense that you seem to be asking the same questions over and over

I leave others to reach their own conclusions…

Therefore, in your view, everything is self-explanatory!
no, I just said not everything requires an explanation.

Your exact words:
“Generally speaking nothing requires an explanation” - which implies that almost everything is self-explanatory.

Ever heard of the criterion of fertility?
that’s an absurd analogy

It’s not an analogy but a fact. Do you deny that fertility is an important criterion of scientific theories? If they have no predictive power or practical implications they are of less value than others that have. It is the same with human beings. If they produce no positive results they too have less value…

 

[yankee_doodle]

I leave others to reach their own conclusions…

OK

Your exact words:
“Generally speaking nothing requires an explanation” - which implies that almost everything is self-explanatory.

it doesn’t imply anything. There’s actually things that cannot be explained, which some of us feel no urgent need to have explained (or we’re content waiting until science provides an explanation).

It’s not an analogy but a fact. Do you deny that fertility is an important criterion of scientific theories? If they have no predictive power or practical implications they are or less value than others that have. It is the same with human beings. If they produce no positive results they too have less value…

You say intelligent design is a more effective model compared to a hypothesis that the universe was created by random process. OK fine, but even if that’s true (and I’m not convinced it is) it still does nothing insofar as lending credibility to the claims made by Christianity. Under your theory deism is just as plausible as Christianity (or any of the other mainstream world religions). Agnostics don’t deny the hypothetical possibility of something like deism, so you’re probably arguing with the wrong guy on this point.

 

[liquidpele]

i assume you’re suggesting that i’ve done something wrong, but it’s hard to tell when all you’re doing is dropping pithy one-liners…

care to elaborate?

Simply put, you used a bunch of faulty logic that sounded right to you. Your claim that a coin landing on it’s side would have a 33.3% probability of happening sums it up pretty well.

 

[john_doran]

Simply put, you used a bunch of faulty logic that sounded right to you. Your claim that a coin landing on it’s side would have a 33.3% probability of happening sums it up pretty well.

don’t put it simply for my sake - point out the faults in detail.

a one-in-three chance of some event occurring is a 33.3% chance, and if you include the edge of the coin as a possible landing configuration for the flipped coin, there are precisely three outcomes.

 

[liquidpele]

don’t put it simply for my sake - point out the faults in detail.

a one-in-three chance of some event occurring is a 33.3% chance, and if you include the edge of the coin as a possible landing configuration for the flipped coin, there are precisely three outcomes.

I rest my case.

 

[yankee_doodle]

don’t put it simply for my sake - point out the faults in detail.

a one-in-three chance of some event occurring is a 33.3% chance, and if you include the edge of the coin as a possible landing configuration for the flipped coin, there are precisely three outcomes.

I’m not a physicist or statician and I know the chance of a coin landing on its side is far lower than 33.3%?

 

[reggieM]

… Catholic theologian John Haught in an interview that explains why science and God are not at odds, why Mike Huckabee worries him, and why Richard Dawkins and other “new atheists” are ignorant about religion… If you don’t know about him, you should; his books are great.

Personally, I do not find him to be trustworthy.
From the interview you posted …

**What do you make of the miracles in the Bible – most importantly, the Resurrection? Do you think that happened in the literal sense? **

I don’t think theology is being responsible if it ever takes anything with completely literal understanding. What we have in the New Testament is a story that’s trying to awaken us to trust that our lives make sense, that in the end, everything works out for the best. In a pre-scientific age, this is done in a way in which unlettered and scientifically illiterate people can be challenged by this Resurrection. But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning.

**So if a camera was at the Resurrection, it would have recorded nothing? **

If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I’m not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that. Faith means taking the risk of being vulnerable and opening your heart to that which is most important. We trivialize the whole meaning of the Resurrection when we start asking, Is it scientifically verifiable? Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgiveness – all the feelings and experiences that accompanied the early community’s belief that Jesus is still alive. Science is simply not equipped to deal with that. We have to learn to read the universe at different levels. That means we have to overcome literalism not just in the Christian or Jewish or Islamic interpretations of scripture but also in the scientific exploration of the universe. There are levels of depth in the cosmos that science simply cannot reach by itself.

"Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”" John 20:27

 

[john_doran]

I rest my case.

you didn’t make a case to begin with…

 

[john_doran]

I’m not a physicist or statician and I know the chance of a coin landing on its side is far lower than 33.3%?

read my post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5648273&postcount=305

perhaps you’ll have more luck actually understanding it than liquidpele…