List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

because they’re not great modern superstitious, and they do have a far more rational basis then religion (moreover, it’s silly to define something like naturalism using a term like superstition).

What can naturalism and scientism tell you about the most important things in life like truth, goodness, justice, beauty and love?

We don’t need to say a force or being of some sort who is like a god cannot exist in order to debunk religion; and I don’t.

How exactly do you define religion?

Oh yes, a seven day creation story (or whatever the newest Catholic spin is) is surely far more “rational” than what we already know to be true?

What do you already know to be true about the origin of the universe and human beings? Do you believe we evolved by chance?

The average person in any age is not so stupid as you seem to think.
maybe so … but the average person (in any age) is probably far dumber than you think (I’m more & more amazed by the stupidity of people every day).

What does that prove?

There were many people who rejected the claims of Jesus even when they were in His presence and after His resurrection. The fact that all of His apostles except one were put to death demonstrates that people were not so superstitious as you make out. Nor is there any reason to believe that the average IQ was lower than it is today.
there is no reason to believe anything about IQ (I never mentioned that).

Your exact words: “I posited people in the first century were probably less intelligent and more superstitious and susceptible to religious trickery than people are today”. What about all the crazy sects, palmistry, astrology, etc that exist today?

I merely noted the extraordinarily bizarre religious environment that existed in the first century (and the high level of superstition).

There have been Christian martyrs in every century up to our own, one of the most recent being Archbishop Romero in El Salvador who was murdered for his opposition to the junta. In his own words:
“The Church would betray its own love for God and its fidelity to the gospel if it stopped being . . . a defender of the rights of the poor . . . a humanizer of every legitimate struggle to achieve a more just society.”
If that is bizarre superstition then the world needs more of it…

Moreover, you now seem to endorse a view that validates scientific facts like a heliocentric solar system, a 4 billion year old earth, and perhaps even evolution. What does that do to your bible story? I guess you think the new testament can exist isolated from the old testament – since we already know many facts (such as evolution, human migration patterns, the history of linguistics, etc.) that debunk many old testament stories.

The NT is based on the monotheism of the OT, the Ten Commandments and the prophecies of the Messiah - not on the literal truth of Genesis.

If we evolved and if there was an Adam then he must have been a primate. The Pauline epistles sure waste a lot of ink talking about a chimpanzee?

Of course the first man was a primate but was he a chimp - or a person like yourself with the power of reason and free will? Or do you reckon our conscience, power of reason and free will are illusions?
St Paul also had Christians put to death before his conversion and finished up by being beheaded in Rome for spreading the Gospel of love and justice.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

What do you already know to be true about the origin of the universe and human beings? Do you believe we evolved by chance?

How hard is it to wiki evolution so as to gain even the most basic understanding of the subject. That way you could avoid looking as utterly ridiculous as you do when you say things like… “Do you believe we evolved by chance?”

In fact I’m sure i have pointed out to you that evolution has nothing to do with chance. At this point it seems you are just being willfully ignorant.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In fact I’m sure i have pointed out to you that evolution has nothing to do with chance.

Evolution has everything to do with the environment it must adapt to. According to atheistic cosmology, the environment of the Earth was in do way designed, nor was it controlled by anything except the laws of physics themselves. In other words, there is no cause to the universe. From dictionary.com:

Chance: The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. (Bolding mine)

How, then, does evolution have *nothing *to do with chance?

 

[tonyrey]

In fact I’m sure i have pointed out to you that evolution has nothing to do with chance.

Was a Nobel Laureate’s knowledge inferior to yours? Jacques Monod’s classic work on evolution is entitled “Chance and Necessity”.

To complete Prodigal Son’s refutation:

The entire edifice of NeoDarwinism is based on two hypotheses:

1. The origin of life was due to fortuitous combinations of molecules.
2. The development of life could not have occurred without random genetic mutations.

At this point it seems you are just being willfully ignorant.

At this point it seems you are just being willfully illogical.
Ironically you have stated the truth: Evolution has nothing to do with Chance - and everything to do with Design!

 

[yankee_doodle]

What can naturalism and scientism tell you about the most important things in life like truth, goodness, justice, beauty and love?

I’m not sure. First, things like truth and justice are apparently subjective. You (I assume) believe your church has been a bastion of truth and justice throughout the ages, while I think it’s been oppressive, generally against individual freedoms, and at times horribly tyrannical.

I find no redeeming value for the murder of Tyndale for merely publishing a book (and the persecution of those he provided the bible too for merely possessing it), I find no redeeming value to inquisitions burning people at the stake, I find no redeeming value to bishops covering up cases of mass pedophilia, I find no redeeming value to the allegation that Catholic clergymen incited the hatred against the Tutsi that resulted in the genocide in Rwanda, I find no redeeming value in confining Jews to a ghetto and forcing them to wear identifying armbands, and the list goes on and on.

So I would argue the last people we should be looking to for truth and justice are the religious and their institutions. As far as beauty and love, I find little beauty and love in the actions of your church through the ages (besides Vatican art and its European cathedrals).

How exactly do you define religion?

I this a rhetorical question? Catholicism is an example that comes to mind (Christianity more generally speaking, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.).

What do you already know to be true about the origin of the universe and human beings? Do you believe we evolved by chance?

Beliefs based on zero evidence are called guesses or stories, not truth or anything resembling truth.

Your exact words: “I posited people in the first century were probably less intelligent and more superstitious and susceptible to religious trickery than people are today”.

They were obviously less intelligent in terms of available knowledge. The less you know the more gullible your are. For instance the ancients prior to Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc. believed in a geocentric universe (because they didn’t know better). Now we do know for a fact geocentrism is wrong. However, in terms of IQ I’m sure first century folks didn’t have any less intellectual “capacity” than we do.

What about all the crazy sects, palmistry, astrology, etc that exist today?

Frankly I put all religion in that category. However, the level of gullibility of people does correlate to how much or how little they know. You probably couldn’t be convinced that our universe is geocentric because you know for a fact it’s not. However, because science can’t necessarily debunk the Jesus story in uncertain terms you still hold onto hope (however, I would argue that shows a lack of critical thinking, because I do believe when we look at the pattern and history of religion, it becomes clear that none of it is true).

There have been Christian martyrs in every century up to our own, one of the most recent being Archbishop Romero in El Salvador who was murdered for his opposition to the junta. In his own words:
“The Church would betray its own love for God and its fidelity to the gospel if it stopped being . . . a defender of the rights of the poor . . . a humanizer of every legitimate struggle to achieve a more just society.”
If that is bizarre superstition then the world needs more of it…

I’m not sure what to say … except I don’t really see the CC helping the poor all that much. After centuries of “helping” they’re still poor right?

The NT is based on the monotheism of the OT, the Ten Commandments and the prophecies of the Messiah - not on the literal truth of Genesis.

that’s just the newest spin job. Back in the days of Galileo a geocentric universe was also an indispensable truth enumerated by the infallible CC (so whatever)

Of course the first man was a primate but was he a chimp - or a person like yourself with the power of reason and free will? Or do you reckon our conscience, power of reason and free will are illusions?

Are you trying to segway into a philosophical discussion on determinism, or do you normally insert red herrings with no nexus to the instant issue into your questions?

St Paul also had Christians put to death before his conversion and finished up by being beheaded in Rome for spreading the Gospel of love and justice.

What the heck does this alleged fact have to do with the discussion? I see mostly rhetoric, and little substance (because there is no logical and substantive argument refuting my position … just emotive red herring that aren’t even based on verifiable fact).

In other words you cannot prove that the men and women who started the Christian religion were any more or less “divine” than David Koresh and his followers? You can only make a good case that they were successful where Koresh wasn’t (it stands to reason if Clinton were emperor and they had an ATF Christianity might have died on the spot).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Evolution has everything to do with the environment it must adapt to. According to atheistic cosmology, the environment of the Earth was in do way designed, nor was it controlled by anything except the laws of physics themselves. In other words, there is no cause to the universe. From dictionary.com:

How, then, does evolution have *nothing *to do with chance?

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology?

The environment that natural selection responds to (evolves for) is either:

a) Caused by chance or b) Caused by something other than chance

If a, then natural selection has everything to do with chance. If b, then the cause of the environment (the universe) is equivalent to God, as being the creator of the universe.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Was a Nobel Laureate’s knowledge inferior to yours? Jacques Monod’s classic work on evolution is entitled “Chance and Necessity”.

To complete Prodigal Son’s refutation:

The entire edifice of NeoDarwinism is based on two hypotheses:

1. The origin of life was due to fortuitous combinations of molecules.
2. The development of life could not have occurred without random genetic mutations.

At this point it seems you are just being willfully illogical.
Ironically you have stated the truth: Evolution has nothing to do with Chance - and everything to do with Design!

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of species. So it has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is Abiogenesis.

What on earth do you even mean by “chance”? You use the word to try and discredit the theory. However lets look at what you really mean. Let say we have a population of 1000 lions. When we look at the offspring do you expect that are all going to be the same size? Or do some by “chance” happen to be bigger than others? Is this really “chance”, or is this actually inevitable given we have 1000 lions. More so if we had two cubs, would you expect them to be the same size??? It is sheer “chance” that every person in your class at school was not the same height??

Random mutations allow descent with modification. The mutations are random (at the DNA level), however they products of the mutations are not 100% random with respect to all life, but are limited by taxonomy. In other words we are not going to see humans suddenly mutate wings or gills.

Further more the success of the new offspring, which in effect is the “evolution” of the species is ANYTHING BUT random or “CHANCE”.

I mean really how can you sit and spout nonsense on a subject you clearly know nothing about? What university did you study evolutionary biology at? Let me guess, none. So stop using silly word like “chance” to try to discredit a theory you neither know nor understand.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The environment that natural selection responds to (evolves for) is either:

a) Caused by chance or b) Caused by something other than chance

If a, then natural selection has everything to do with chance. If b, then the cause of the environment (the universe) is equivalent to God, as being the creator of the universe.

LOL, i love this kind of logic…

Is it A my straw-man argument
Or b god.

For if it is not my straw-man than it HAS to be GOD DID IT :extrahappy:.

Again planet formation is not “chance”. Changes in environment are NOT “chance”. Natural section is NOT “chance”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Again planet formation is not “chance”. Changes in environment are NOT “chance”. Natural section is NOT “chance”.

Its all very well looking like you know what you are talking about, but do you have an actual rebuttal?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Again planet formation is not “chance”. Changes in environment are NOT “chance”. Natural section is NOT “chance”.

Chance means: “the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency”. (dictionary.com)

The key word is understood. To the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” the theist responds “God.” Therefore, the universe is an event whose cause is explained.

How do you respond to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” If you have no answer, then you cannot say that (given your assumptions) the cause of the universe is understood. If you say there is no cause to the universe, then you are committed to chance, at least according to the above definition. Are you saying, then, that there is a cause to the universe?

And please don’t respond with mockery, Charles. It’s obvious that you’re not talking with idiots here, and you impress no one by pretending that you are.

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t get much time to visit these forums at the moment, but I try and contribute some common sense when I can. Just picked up on a few comments made over the last few days, thought I’d add my tuppence worth.

1. How would you prove everything is physical?

It can’t be proven. But there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise

1. How would you prove science is capable of explaining everything?

Not sure anybody has claimed this (although I might have missed it), because again it clearly can’t be proven. This is not a weakness of science, and it is intellectually dishonest to seize upon it as some sort of vote in favour of the existence of God.

We do not regard religion as a default explanation for everything where science hasn’t yet provided one. It is only when science claims to explain the origin of the universe and of human beings that we provide a more rational and adequate explanation.

Firstly, science does have an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe and human beings. There are a couple of gaps in that explanation, for which realistic theories exist but have not been absolutely shown to be true.

Religion, on the other hand, most certainly does not provide, “a more rational and adequate explanation.” An explanation is, in this context, a description of how something happened. How is saying, “God did it” a description of anything? It’s just waffle. It’s an answer, without any evidence to support it, and which sets up a whole host of further questions to anybody with an inquiring mind. There is a difference between an answer and an explanation. To deny this, or ignore it, is disingenuous on the part of the theist.

You imply that it is necessary for God to manifest himself in every century in the same way that he did in the time of Jesus.

Not that it’s necessary, just curious that in a time when we are able to reliably verify and document such manifestations, he’s busy arranging his sock drawer. It’s not conclusive either way, but it is odd.

Elementary knowledge of the Gospels is sufficient to make one realise that His mission and message were not just for His own generation but for all mankind until the end of time.

But with no independently verifiable veracity, there’s no reason to believe that any of it’s true.

You are assuming that all Christians believe in the literal truth of everything in the Old Testament.

You are different from them in that you reject the claims of Jesus but presumably you accept His moral teaching which is the foundation of the values and legal systems of modern society and of the UN declaration of human rights.

Ah, the common recourse of the theist, and so easily dismissed. If God’s moral teachings are the foundation of this, that and the other, then why is rape, murder and torture not acceptable? Oh, what’s that you say, not all of the bible should be taken literally, some is allegorical? Then from where did we get the morality by which we can make these distinctions?

Do you attribute all the beauty in the universe, the immense value of life and our free will and capacity for love to the fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?

Why not? There’s no evidence that anything else is involved. Again, I’m compelled to point out that just because you do not understand something, it is juvenile logic to just attribute it to God. You seem consistently unable to grasp this basic logical tenet, although I suspect that you simply refuse to acknowledge it because it screws your argument.

Ironically you have stated the truth: Evolution has nothing to do with Chance - and everything to do with Design!

Evolution clearly has elements of chance - the problem is that many theists take this to mean ‘completely by chance,’ claim it’s preposterous and therefore evolution can’t be true. This then wastes valuable time as the evolutionist has to explain exactly what is meant, which is that the origin of life probably originated from a chance set of of universal physical properties and a just-so mix of chemicals; and futher, that evolution results from natural selection of random mutations.

From this perspective, evolution clearly does show design - but not intentional design, and certainly no evidence of intelligent design.

 

[tonyrey]

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of species. So it has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is Abiogenesis.

You cannot evade the fact that, according to NeoDarwinists, the **source of the life which evolves is the fortuitous **combinations of molecules.

Random mutations allow descent with modification. The mutations are random (at the DNA level), however they products of the mutations are not 100% random with respect to all life, but are limited by taxonomy.

You cannot evade the fact that, according to NeoDarwinists, the **source **of the modifications is **random.

F****ortuitous events=**random events=chance events=undesigned events=purposeless events
.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It can’t be proven. But there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Yes there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The Universe began to exist. Thats Just one. Also There is the proofs of Aquinas. Also physical reality in principle cannot explain all the qualities that occur in respect of physical processes. Things like freewill and mind.

From this perspective, evolution clearly does show design - but not intentional design, and certainly no evidence of intelligent design.

Why not intentional design?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Its all very well looking like you know what you are talking about, but do you have an actual rebuttal?

One does not need to rebut strawman arguments.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Chance means: “the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency”. (dictionary.com)

The key word is understood. To the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” the theist responds “God.” Therefore, the universe is an event whose cause is explained.

No that is not explained, that is unfounded conjecture. Saying god does it means the exact same as “i don’t know”. Like you said the key world is understood, so if you understand answer this… HOW did “god do it”???

How do you respond to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” If you have no answer, then you cannot say that (given your assumptions) the cause of the universe is understood. If you say there is no cause to the universe, then you are committed to chance, at least according to the above definition. Are you saying, then, that there is a cause to the universe?

I am saying, that nobody knows. So any speculation, including your god is meaningless. Making an answer up does not help the situation, I’ll just say magic pink rabbit did it, you happy now…**.Also i must ask what does ANY of the above have to do with evolution??? **

And please don’t respond with mockery, Charles. It’s obvious that you’re not talking with idiots here, and you impress no one by pretending that you are.

I didn’t say anyone was an idiot, i said that they are uneducated in regard to evolution, which is clearly the case. A theory in science explains a specific set of facts. The origin of the universe, Abiogenesis etc have** NOTHING** to do with evolution. Evolution is not an accident and it is NOT chance. Anyone that thinks otherwise simply does not understand the theory.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You cannot evade the fact that, according to NeoDarwinists, the **source of the life which evolves is the fortuitous **combinations of molecules.
You cannot evade the fact that, according to NeoDarwinists, the **source **of the modifications is **random.

F****ortuitous events=**random events=chance events=undesigned events=purposeless events
.

Do you want to talk about Abiogenesis of Evolution? Have you now agreed Evolution is not chance, and have moved your claim to Abiogenesis? Why cant people stay on topic, are we talking about Evolution, Abiogenesis, Plant Formation, The big Bang, The origin of universe??? These are not interrelated theories. You people are all over the place

 

[tonyrey]

             *1. How would you prove **everything*** is physical?

It can’t be proven. But there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you want to talk about Abiogenesis of Evolution? Have you now agreed Evolution is not chance, and have moved your claim to Abiogenesis? Why cant people stay on topic, are we talking about Evolution, Abiogenesis, Plant Formation, The big Bang, The origin of universe??? These are not interrelated theories. You people are all over the place

Can you understand that evolution could not have occurred unless life already existed?
Why do you constantly evade the fact that fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations were the primary factors?
We are dealing with a comprehensive explanation of reality - not isolated, unrelated segments of reality. The sequence of events in logical, chronological order:

1. The origin of the universe
2. The origin of life
3. The process of evolution

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yes there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The Universe began to exist. Thats Just one. Also There is the proofs of Aquinas. Also physical reality in principle cannot explain all the qualities that occur in respect of physical processes. Things like freewill and mind.

the metaphysics of Aquinas is not proof, it’s a theory. Secondly, the fact that we believe there was a singularity (and big bang) doesn’t prove anything insofar as the existence of a god (and even if it did it wouldn’t bolster the merits of the Christian religion anymore than say deism).

For all we know it might have been another species all together that put the singularity (which eventually became the universe we know today) into motion? Imagine, just a small handful of elements, a drop more matter than anti-matter, and you have the makings of a universe. While our current mathematical formulas break down when we try and approach the density of the singularity, it stands to reason eventually we’ll build a stable quantum computer that can handle those calculations (or perhaps a traditional supercomputer might eventually do the job; after all IBM just broke the teraflop barrier).

We might one day have the technology to literally build a universe (then of course we’d have to figure out how to reach far enough into space away from our own universe to “set the charge” … so we don’t blow ourselves up). It might sound far fetched to some, but it’s perfectly conceivable.

So I don’t see how believing the god of the Christian religion built the universe is anymore credible than thinking little green men built the thing? It really boils down to whether or not you’re willing to believe a pretty far fetched story promulgated by ancient men, which was premised on an even more far fetched (and problematic in terms of reconciling it with known scientific fact) story