List of common fallacies of Atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
Personally, I do not find him to be trustworthy.
From the interview you posted …

**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. [/INDENT]

"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
Click to expand...
I also have a problem with this. It seems that there is a temptation to believe that such events were not meant to be taken literal but were instead written for their spiritual value. But this can only be an opinion, and a baseless one as far as i can tell, as he does not go in to explaining his justification for thinking such a thing. And i don’t know what he means when he says that many conservative Catholics have said the same. I don’t know how conservative such a catholic is. I think there is a difference between progressive and pushing the line beyond what is necessitated by the evidence.
Thanks for pointing this out.
 
john_doran said:
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…
Click to expand...
reading that post only reinforces my view. First, you try and say the Galileo affair wasn’t a bizarre moment in CC history, when of course it was (historical revisionism smacks of intellectual dishonesty & ruins your credibility, because the persecution of Galileo was CLEARLY one of the dumbest moments in western history).

As for the coin flip thing … I’m really not sure what you’re saying. We know it’s very rare for a coin to land on its side (it doesn’t occur 1/3 of the time). This is because of physics, gravity, whatever (not my cup of tea, but I’ve flipped a coin enough times in life to feel confident in what I’m saying here). I don’t think you were saying a coin will land on its side 1/3 of the time (you merely said “if you entertain the possibility”).

Anyway …
 
tonyrey said:
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
Click to expand...
Atheism has nothing to do with any of the above, again you go off an a tangent.
  1. Wrong, but this is Abiogenesis, not evolution, not atheism.
  2. Eh?
  3. LOL wrong. The outcome has NOTHING to do with “chance”. Oh and the mutations are very random, this is a fact. So we know to exactly what extent they are random. However with respect to offspring the result is NOT RANDOM CHANCE!!!
    **
    "I have made it quite clear that the element of chance does not imply that every event that follows is due to chance. "**
The height variation is due to random mutations** NOT **an event that follows. So if it is sheer “chance” why to we never get 100 foot tall kids??? 🤷🤷 :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Charles_Darwin said:
**
"I have made it quite clear that the element of chance does not imply that every event that follows is due to chance. "**
Click to expand...
This seems to imply that ultimately we are dealing with chance, and the events that follow, follow necessarily due to the nature of the event that occurred by chance. Is this right?
Charles_Darwin said:
The height variation is due to random mutations** NOT **an event that follows. So if it is sheer “chance” why to we never get 100 foot tall kids??? 🤷🤷 :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t remember your opponent claiming that it was sheer chance, though i might be mistaken. But it does seem that what he is claiming is that, given the absence of a creator, the processes were unguided and thus there is an element of chance involved. Is this not correct?
 
MindOverMatter said:
This seems to imply that ultimately we are dealing with chance, and the events that follow, follow necessarily due to the nature of the event that occurred by chance. Is this right?

I don’t remember your opponent claiming that it was sheer chance, though i might be mistaken. But it does seem that what he is claiming is that, given the absence of a creator, the processes were unguided and thus there is an element of chance involved. Is this not correct?
Click to expand...
Sorry the first part was a quote, i just was to lazy to quote it, so i put it in quotations.

His exact statement was “Do you believe we evolved by chance?”. The answer to this is of course no. This is an absurd statement. Yes there are elements of “chance” (a word i would not use to describe random mutations, but is used in his case to try and discredit the theory). However just because mutations give rise to variation does not mean that “we evolved by chance”.

Most of evolution is the exact OPPOSITE of chance, so how on earth can one say we evolved by chance.
 
Is it a fallacy of atheist to believe the religious are brainwashed? I don’t think it is … and I do honestly believe the religious are not only brainwashed, but are the biggest group of enablers on earth. Perhaps I’m wrong … but I see no logical reason to believe otherwise?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Only if they believe that the atheists are not.
Click to expand...
I think it’s harder to depict atheists as brainwashed, since for most adults atheism or agnosticism is a position we arrive at through our own reasoning. However, I understand there is some pressure in academia (but of course I’m not a college professor, so this hardly applies to me). Moreover, while in college I don’t remember much discussion about religion (either way), beyond in a benign historical context.

Therefore, I’m not sure where this brainwashing comes from? It’s funny that the religious typically try and use all the arguments that really apply to them … on us. For instance I hear the religious constantly talk about schools indoctrinating kids, whereas religion is everywhere openly trying to indoctrinate everyone all the time (and I don’t think schools try to indoctrinate kids against religion, rather they usually just teach their curriculum and that’s it).

Anyway …
 
yankee_doodle said:
I think it’s harder to depict atheists as brainwashed, since for most adults atheism or agnosticism is a position we arrive at through our own reasoning. However, I understand there is some pressure in academia (but of course I’m not a college professor, so this hardly applies to me). Moreover, while in college I don’t remember much discussion about religion (either way), beyond in a benign historical context.

Therefore, I’m not sure where this brainwashing comes from? It’s funny that the religious typically try and use all the arguments that really apply to them … on us. For instance I hear the religious constantly talk about schools indoctrinating kids, whereas religion is everywhere openly trying to indoctrinate everyone all the time (and I don’t think schools try to indoctrinate kids against religion, rather they usually just teach their curriculum and that’s it).

Anyway …
Click to expand...
I think “brainwashed” is too strong of a term though.
 
yankee_doodle said:
I think it’s harder to depict atheists as brainwashed, since for most adults atheism or agnosticism is a position we arrive at through our own reasoning.

QUOTE]

It might be true that atheism is a position we arrive at by our own reasoning through personal experience rather than something learned, however that may not be saying much for that sort of position. For the human being much of what serves us well to survive in society and coexist with fellow man and nature are the things we are taught. Mathematics, language, science, values, and even religion have to be taught and are not simply arrived at by an individual over the course of a lifetime.

My view of what the human arrives at left to his own devices and reasoning is rather bleak. Man would not become wiser and more insightful, but instead more barbaric and selfish.
Click to expand...
 
yankee_doodle said:
I think it’s harder to depict atheists as brainwashed, since for most adults atheism or agnosticism is a position we arrive at through our own reasoning. However, I understand there is some pressure in academia (but of course I’m not a college professor, so this hardly applies to me). Moreover, while in college I don’t remember much discussion about religion (either way), beyond in a benign historical context.

Therefore, I’m not sure where this brainwashing comes from? It’s funny that the religious typically try and use all the arguments that really apply to them … on us. For instance I hear the religious constantly talk about schools indoctrinating kids, whereas religion is everywhere openly trying to indoctrinate everyone all the time (and I don’t think schools try to indoctrinate kids against religion, rather they usually just teach their curriculum and that’s it).
Click to expand...
Agnosticism is a position that can be arrived at by reason. Atheism is not.

I was saying that atheists are brainwashed, not agnostics. I’m not exactly sure how someone could be brainwashed into *not *knowing something.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Agnosticism is a position that can be arrived at by reason. Atheism is not.

I was saying that atheists are brainwashed, not agnostics. I’m not exactly sure how someone could be brainwashed into *not *knowing something.
Click to expand...
Being Agnostic and being Atheist are not mutually exclusive. Typically an “Agnostic” is just short for “agnostic atheist”. Simply put, agnostic is about “knowing” or not, while atheism is about believing or not. I don’t know for a fact that there is not a god, but I don’t believe in one currently. There are very few gnostic atheists for this reason - it’s a bit unreasonable.
 
Thales said:
My view of what the human arrives at left to his own devices and reasoning is rather bleak. Man would not become wiser and more insightful, but instead more barbaric and selfish.
Click to expand...
Although I am agnostic, not atheist (in other words I don’t say with any degree of certitude that something like intelligent design is impossible) I am convinced that the world we live in today is entirely the result of man left to his own devices. I don’t think mankind is inherently anything, much less depraved (as Christians would have it). I think, whether by good fortune or design, we are endowed with the intellectual capacity to be either good or evil. Indeed even the terms good and evil are subjective. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said proof of an inherent morality given us by a divine spiritual source can be found in historical patterns of human conduct (I’m paraphrasing from memory). He would use examples like it’s never been honorable to turn and run away in battle, or it’s never been viewed as good to kill our loved ones. However, it seems to me that proves nothing more than group think is a powerful thing, and the more intelligent biological creatures are the more capacity they have to form intimate relationships. He also said evil or bad is just a corrupted form of good. Maybe in that latter observation he has a point, but there is certainly no such thing as a timeless standard of human conduct that man has always reached towards. Our standards of conduct have evolved along with our knowledge. In short I do not believe the human conscience is derived from any supernatural source. I think our subconscious is an important driver of our predispositions toward certain behavior, and biology is also important.

Moreover, I do not believe in a god who answers prayers or interacts with humans on a personal level (much less intervenes in human affairs). In fact even though I don’t refute the hypothetical possibility of some sort of intelligent design (however remote it might be), I do think we should act under the assumption that everything has a natural cause.

I suppose religion can be a good and perhaps necessary diversion for some. I suppose it can provide one with comfort to think they will be whisked off to a heavenly nirvana, like in a fairy tale, rather than just die. It’s probably even more comforting to think our deceased loved ones still exist in this celestial nirvana. The truth is rarely more comforting than myth.
 
yankee_doodle said:
sounds good I guess.
Click to expand...
Well, don’t get me wrong… some religious people likely are brainwashed. Consider the phelps family. My point is just that most religious people in my experience choose religion because its’ the default - it’s what they think society expects - it’s what they grew up with - and from that indoctrination religion becomes important to them.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Atheism has nothing to do with any of the above.
Click to expand...
Do you deny that the atheist believes the origin of life was **fortuitous **and purposeless?
That the atheist believes evolution occurred as the result of **random **mutations and natural selection?
That the atheist believes the outcome of evolution was not intended or designed?
That the atheist believes the process of evolution was due solely to Chance and Necessity?
Why did the atheist Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod entitle his book “Chance and Necessity”?
I have made it quite clear that the element of chance does not imply that every event that follows is due to chance.
The height variation is due to random mutations NOT an event that follows. So if it is sheer “chance” why to we never get 100 foot tall kids?
Click to expand...
Have you misread my statement?
"I have made it quite clear that the element of chance does not imply that every event that follows is due to chance. "

N.B. For the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance.
Chance also means “Absence of Design”, e.g. they met by chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top