List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

Charles Darwin;5655578:

Atheism has nothing to do with any of the above.

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 i

mply 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?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.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Atheism isn’t the state of not knowing something - it’s the state of not believing something. Atheism is basically skepticism, and it’s hard to imagine anybody being brainwashed or indoctrinated into being skeptical!

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism isn’t the state of not knowing something - it’s the state of not believing something. Atheism is basically skepticism, and it’s hard to imagine anybody being brainwashed or indoctrinated into being skeptical!

Not so hard when you see the adverts on London buses…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

…it’s hard to imagine anybody being brainwashed or indoctrinated into being skeptical!

Is that so? Consider this passage from Plato’s Republic, describing the process by which young people are introduced to dialectic:

You know that there are certain principles about justice and honour, which were taught us in childhood, and under their parental authority we have been brought up, obeying and honouring them.
That is true.
There are also opposite maxims and habits of pleasure which flatter and attract the soul, but do not influence those of us who have any sense of right, and they continue to obey and honour the maxims of their fathers.
True.
Now, when a man is in this state, and the questioning spirit asks what is fair or honourable, and he answers as the legislator has taught him, and then arguments many and diverse refute his words, until he is driven into believing that nothing is honourable any more than dishonourable, or just and good any more than the reverse, and so of all the notions which he most valued, do you think that he will still honour and obey them as before?
Impossible.
And when he ceases to think them honourable and natural as heretofore, and he fails to discover the true, can he be expected to pursue any life other than that which flatters his desires?
He cannot.
And from being a keeper of the law he is converted into a breaker of it?
Unquestionably.
Now all this is very natural in students of philosophy such as I have described, and also, as I was just now saying, most excusable.
Yes, he said; and, I may add, pitiable.
Therefore, that your feelings may not be moved to pity about our citizens who are now thirty years of age, every care must be taken in introducing them to dialectic.
Certainly.
There is a danger lest they should taste the dear delight too early; for youngsters, as you may have observed, when they first get the taste in their mouths, argue for amusement, and are always contradicting and refuting others in imitation of those who refute them; like puppy-dogs, they rejoice in pulling and tearing at all who come near them.
Yes, he said, there is nothing which they like better.
And when they have made many conquests and received defeats at the hands of many, they violently and speedily get into a way of not believing anything which they believed before, and hence, not only they, but philosophy and all that relates to it is apt to have a bad name with the rest of the world.

To me, this seems to apply to a great number of university students, over the last 50 years. They learn to be skeptical, but they never learn anything else. Skepticism is, perhaps, a necessary part of philosophy, but it is not the only part.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you deny that the atheist believes the origin of life was **fortuitous **and purposeless?

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding the origin of life, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

That the atheist believes evolution occurred as the result of **random **mutations and natural selection?

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding Evolution, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

That the atheist believes the outcome of evolution was not intended or designed?

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding Evolution, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

That the atheist believes the process of evolution was due solely to Chance and Necessity?

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding Evolution, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

Why did the atheist Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod entitle his book “Chance and Necessity”?

Maybe that was his personal belief, but that says nothing about what others without theism think about the subject.

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. "

You back tracking now, you said “evolve by chance”. You were wrong, just admit it and we can be done with this.

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.

Atheist evolution, whats that?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding the origin of life, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

Atheism tells you that the atheist believes the origin of life has natural causes.

Yes, atheism says nothing about ones belief regarding Evolution, all it tells you is a person is without theism.

Atheism tells you that the atheist believes evolution has natural causes.

             *Why did the atheist Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod entitle his book "**Chance*** and Necessity"

Maybe that was his personal belief, but that says nothing about what others without theism think about the subject.

Give us one example of an atheist who disagrees with him. N.B. “Chance and Necessity” not"Necessity and Chance"…

You back tracking now, you said “evolve by chance”. You were wrong, just admit it and we can be done with this.

NeoDarwinism implies:

1. Evolution is a **purposeless **(i.e. unplanned) process in a pointless universe.
2. Evolution is a haphazard process which has resulted in numerous dead ends.
3. Evolution commenced with cells produced by **fortuitous **combinations of molecules.
4. Evolution has occurred due to** random **genetic mutations and **blind **natural selection.
5. Evolution has resulted in the occurrence of living organisms which exist for no reason and no ultimate purpose.

                                                                       Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5658278#post5658278)                 
             *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.*

Atheist evolution, whats that?

For the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance = In the opinion of the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance.
Chance also means “Absence of Design”, e.g. they met by chance.
Why are you so averse to the idea that Chance plays a dominant part in evolution? What do you have to lose - given that you don’t believe it was designed?

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism isn’t the state of not knowing something - it’s the state of not believing something. Atheism is basically skepticism, and it’s hard to imagine anybody being brainwashed or indoctrinated into being skeptical!

Atheism is the state of believing everything has a natural explanation. It does not exist in a void. It is based on beliefs about the nature of reality, e.g. the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. Atheism does not imply total scepticism; otherwise it would have no basis for rejecting theism.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Atheism tells you that the atheist believes the origin of life has natural causes.
Atheism tells you that the atheist believes evolution has natural causes.Give us one example of an atheist who disagrees with him. N.B. “Chance and Necessity” not"Necessity and Chance"…
NeoDarwinism implies:

1. Evolution is a **purposeless **(i.e. unplanned) process in a pointless universe.
2. Evolution is a haphazard process which has resulted in numerous dead ends.
3. Evolution commenced with cells produced by **fortuitous **combinations of molecules.
4. Evolution has occurred due to** random **genetic mutations and **blind **natural selection.
5. Evolution has resulted in the occurrence of living organisms which exist for no reason and no ultimate purpose. For the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance = In the opinion of the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance.
   Chance also means “Absence of Design”, e.g. they met by chance.
   Why are you so averse to the idea that Chance plays a dominant part in evolution? What do you have to lose - given that you don’t believe it was designed?

I find it absolutely astounding that you STILL don’t even know or understand what the word atheist means after it has been explained to you countless times. ALL atheism tells you is someone is without theism. THAT IS IT, it says NOTHING about what one believes in regard to the origin of the universe, other than they don’t believe that any of the gods of human theism are behind it.

I’m starting to think your not the smartest, here we see you AGAIN trying to attribute to evolution that which in not contained in the SPECIFIC set of facts that the theory explains…

**1. Evolution is a **purposeless (i.e. unplanned) process in a pointless universe.

Evolution does not have a set goal, planned is utterly irrelevant. Evolution says NOTHING about the universe

2. Evolution is a haphazard process which has resulted in numerous dead ends.

Are you trying to deny that species become extinct? What is your point?

**3. Evolution commenced with cells produced by **fortuitous combinations of molecules.

Evolution is NOT Abiogenesis
**
4. Evolution has occurred due to** random **genetic mutations and **blind natural selection.

“blind” lol what on earth is that supposed to mean?
**
5. Evolution has resulted in the occurrence of living organisms which exist for no reason and no ultimate purpose. **

Evolution says NOTHING about the purpose of live, most christians actually except evolution.

For the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance = In the opinion of the atheist evolution would not have occurred without the element of Chance.

I’m fine with that, I’m glad you have added element and that you now accept we don’t evolve by chance

Chance also means “Absence of Design”, e.g. they met by chance.
Why are you so averse to the idea that Chance plays a dominant part in evolution? What do you have to lose - given that you don’t believe it was designed?

Because chance is NOT dominant, you only claim that because you don’t understand what is going on.

Ps. Please please please pretty please with sugar on topic can you stop with this nonsense about what evolution say about universe, purpose blah blah. In fact fell free to, but please provide a link to a peer reviewed paper that supports your claim.

 

[tonyrey]

I
Because chance is NOT dominant, you only claim that because you don’t understand what is going on.

This is a complete waste of time and energy.

 

[Sair]

I must confess I’ve not read the entire thread (it’s quite late in my part of the world) so I apologise if this has been said before, but there is a very common fallacy commited by both theists and atheists, and one that makes its presence felt quite frequently on these fora. It is thus: that theism and atheism have nothing to contribute to each other’s understanding of the world and human experience, and cannot carry on a coherent and civilised dialogue.

Perhaps I am being insufferably optimistic, but - although I have moments of feeling absolutely infuriated by aspects of the religious worldview - I do feel that atheism is a much more positive position to adopt than it is generally represented. Too often it is condemned as merely the abject and thoughtless rejection of religious faith. In particular, those of us who have arrived here from a religious upbringing see atheism rather as a liberation from irrational rules and potentially destructive beliefs. It is not enough to just diss everything that smacks of supernaturalism - a true embrace of atheism requires an appreciation of the natural world, including the varieties and vaguaries of human experience in all its forms. I realise that rejecting supernatural explanations in favour of natural ones may at first seem terribly disconcerting, but once you get used to the notion that humans are inextricably connected to the rest of the natural world (despite our best efforts to divorce ourselves from it) there is an immense feeling of wonder to experience in the realisation of our place in nature.

Certainly there are those who adopt an atheist position because it’s currently fashionable to do so - however, I suspect that they miss the point, and in doing so, lead many religious believers to dismiss atheism as a mere fad. It’s not - it’s a complete, enlightening, and ultimately fulfilling perspective on life.

 

[yankee_doodle]

your love of nature sounds great and all, but it’s certainly not a necessary element of atheism. I was raised as a Christian (although not practicing in any real way); and I came to atheism through intellectual reasoning. However, that has not driven me to hug my nearest tree either. It’s perfectly plausible that discarding theism could drive a desire to further our command over nature.

Most physicists (at least leading physicists) are atheist or agnostic & these are men who envision traversing time and building super-colliders they hope will mimic the big bang event. These are people who seek to understand and conquer nature, not necessarily be at one with it (although they’re typically not seeking to be at odds with it either).

How can nature best serve our interests? To some the idea of conquering nature seems like an insurmountable task, so they either leave it in the hands of some fictitious deity or they sort of surrender to nature (even if they’re not a theist). However, I think assuming that we can never gain control over nature is not only premature (from a scientific standpoint), but also weak from an intellectual standpoint. Perhaps this is my biological survival instinct talking, but if it is our natural instinct than why fight it?

It seems to me when you create a system that demands we fight our natural survival instinct, it’s just another senseless dogma (like religion). When we say we need to promote a clean environment, of course that’s in our interest (because sustaining the viability of this planet is obviously in our interest). Therefore, that’s a sensible thing to do. But when I hear some people say we should erect a tent and live like ancient native Americans, I just laugh. I like my flat screen TV, computer, air conditioning, and my brand new sports car. If science figured out a way to help me live a longer life … I’d welcome it (as long as it was a quality life).

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[wanstronian]

Not so hard when you see the adverts on London buses…

Do you believe everything you read on the side of a bus???

 

[wanstronian]

Atheism is the state of believing everything has a natural explanation. It does not exist in a void. It is based on beliefs about the nature of reality, e.g. the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. Atheism does not imply total scepticism; otherwise it would have no basis for rejecting theism.

You do not understand what atheism is. A suitable definition is:

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

from here.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

This is a complete waste of time and energy.

Dear me. This sums you up. Now I’m not saying i am the worlds leading authority on evolution, i have however studied evolution at university, which clearly you have not. All i am doing is pointing out to you where you misunderstand evolution.** I’m not asking you to accept the theory** but just understand what it is you are actually denying.

If anything you should be thankful, because to be honest when you talk about evolution you look a little silly. For what you believe to be evolution IS NOT the theory of evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe everything you read on the side of a bus???

You know how effective advertising is…

 

[tonyrey]

Dear me. This sums you up. Now I’m not saying i am the worlds leading authority on evolution, i have however studied evolution at university, which clearly you have not. All i am doing is pointing out to you where you misunderstand evolution.** I’m not asking you to accept the theory** but just understand what it is you are actually denying.

If anything you should be thankful, because to be honest when you talk about evolution you look a little silly. For what you believe to be evolution IS NOT the theory of evolution.

I am quite happy to let others decide this issue for themselves… without casting aspersions or broadcasting my qualifications…

 

[tonyrey]

You do not understand what atheism is. A suitable definition 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1. How do atheists reach their conclusion that there is no God?
2. Is their conclusion totally unrelated to their other beliefs?
3. On what is their reasoning based?

 

[wanstronian]

1. How do atheists reach their conclusion that there is no God?

Speaking for myself, it’s nothing more than the lack of evidence. None of this, “If God exists, why is there evil in the world?” nonsense. Just evidence.

1. Is their conclusion totally unrelated to their other beliefs?

For me, yes. For example, I don’t believe that God doesn’t exist because I believe in evolution. I believe God doesn’t exist and I believe in evolution. Again, I can’t speak for others.

1. On what is their reasoning based?

Isn’t this question 1 rephrased?

 

[tonyrey]

The absence of a Creator is not the absence of “something”. Belief in the absence of a Creator does not explain anything: it replaces an explanation of the universe with a void. Unless it is supported by an alternative explanation it is worthless.
No. This is wrong. Firstly, a ‘creator’ is not an ‘explanation,’ it’s just an answer.
Answers are explanations if they increase our understanding.

How does “The universe just is” increase our understanding?
We have direct experience of creativity but no experience whatsoever of uncaused macroscopic events like a universe appearing from a void.

Secondly, the absence of evidence for an alternative to a creator does not automatically give the ‘creator’ answer special dispensation to be true by default.

That is true but when there is no alternative answer “the Creator” is the best available.

There are diverse aspects of reality like persons, consciousness, creativity, free will, morality, the laws of nature, development and purposeful activity which are unified by the concept of a Creator. This is not a conjecture but fact. Without the concept of a Creator those aspects of reality are not unified.
Well, you’ve moved from the fact of a creator to the concept of a creator. I admit, the concept unifies those aspects.

If the concept unifies it is superior to a concept that does not - like “eternal matter”.

So could any number of other made up ‘explanations.’ A concept that happens to work is not evidence. If it were, it would be a fact that the sun orbits the earth. But it’s something of a breakthrough that you seem to be admitting that the existence of God is conjecture.

You may as well say that the two alternatives to God are mere conjecture, i.e. that the universe has always existed or it appeared spontaneously. We have experience of personal creativity but none whatsoever of eternal physical existence or the spontaneous appearance of universes.

The evidence is the orderliness of nature and creative, rational, purposeful activity for which no other explanation has been given.
Again, the absence of an explanation does not mean an arbitrary answer is correct

It is hardly arbitrary when it corresponds to our own experience of planning, designing and creating systems.

An infinite regress is less satisfactory than an Ultimate Reality which explains the universe in terms of its highest aspects than its lowest, i.e. persons rather than particles.
An infinite regress is unsatisfactory, not least because the human mind cannot really comprehend ‘infinity.’ And God, if that’s what you mean by an Ultimate Reality, is also unsatisfactory because it doesn’t explain a damn thing. It’s just, “God did it, now stop asking questions.”

In that case “eternal universe” and “self-created universe” are equally unsatisfactory.
What is your alternative explanation? Do you regard the universe and its contents as self-explanatory?

If you regard the absence of an explanation to mean that something is self-explanatory, then there is something wrong with you.

If you cannot suggest an alternative you are being obscurantist. “No explanation is better than theism!”

I don’t need an alternative explanation, for the reasons stated above.

I think it is truer to say you don’t want an alternative explanation because it does not fit into your scheme of things.

Did God do everything you don’t understand?

That question is a non sequitur.

If logic presupposes rationality and there is no alternative explanation of rationality it is follows that rationality presupposes a Rational Being.
Utterly not true. Again you are saying that any explanation is better than admitting you don’t know.

Any explanation that does justice to the facts and corresponds to our direct experience of spiritual energy…

Your source of rationality?
I don’t know. Do you take this as evidence that God exists?

Most certainly.

Your precise words: “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, x just happens,” is by far the most efficient answer." How can “x just happens” be an efficient answer? How does it advance our knowledge?
… my intention was to state that there was no ‘intent’ behind x.

It still does not advance our knowledge…

How does it explain rationality and purpose?
It doesn’t, why should it?

We are discussing the origin and nature of reality.

What new information does it give us? What opportunity does it offer for research?
It gives us an x for which we can seek the cause. Not the purpose, but the cause.

Why do you exclude purpose?

How can it be verified or falsified?
There is nothing to verify or falsify.

Nothing shall come of nothing…

How precisely is the universe more efficient without a Creator? Does being irrational and purposeless make it more efficient?
No, they’re just side effects of a non-manufactured universe.

Then why did you say it is a more efficient explanation?

Why did you juxtapose two statements in one sentence if they are unrelated? You obviously believe both statements are true. What precisely is the relation between them? How do you proceed from one to the other?
Juxtaposition does not imply a causal link, and I have clarified on more than one occasion.

The fault lies in the construction and ambiguity of your statement.

 

[tonyrey]

1. How do atheists reach their conclusion that there is no God?

Speaking for myself, it’s nothing more than the lack of evidence. None of this, “If God exists, why is there evil in the world?” nonsense. Just evidence.

None are so blind as those who will not see… Do you really believe there is not one jot of evidence for Design? If so you exceed David Hume in your scepticism!

Quote:
2.* Is their conclusion totally unrelated to their other beliefs? *
For me, yes. For example, I don’t believe that God doesn’t exist because I believe in evolution. I believe God doesn’t exist and I believe in evolution. Again, I can’t speak for others.

Are you quite sure about this? Don’t you believe evolution is ultimately purposeless and due entirely to natural causes? Doesn’t this reinforce your disbelief in God?

                                             3. *On what is their reasoning based?                                 *

Isn’t this question 1 rephrased?

What are your criteria of what constitutes evidence?