Anti-atheism

by drwtsn32 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  drwtsn32

  (Disclaimer: This is not intended to offend theists... just to make fun of these lines of reasoning used to attack atheism. No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited.)

  I was browsing the site Answers in Genesis. It was mentioned recently in another thread. I had looked it it a while back (as a JW) but was turned off by its silly explanations.

  Anyway, I thought these anti-atheism comments were humorous (taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp):

  Naturalism, Logic and Reality
  
  Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

  A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

  The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

  I tend to believe this whole conversation was made up as it seems so rediculous. First, no one who understands evolution would say we got here solely from random processes. Random mutations are indeed one thing that may cause a specie to evolve, but those random changes are only "accepted" if they prove beneficial by completely non-random selection processes. That basically ensures non-beneficial changes will be discarded. That is not random. Also, if God didn't create us then "reason" itself is invalid. Gee, that makes sense.

  On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

  This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

  Again, this conversation sounds made up. Basically reality and truth have no meaning if God doesn't exist. That is rediculous. We can establish so many facts without even considering whether God exists or not. How does it affect our ability to distinguish reality?

  And on this page http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1277.asp:

  To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God. But an atheist can never have enough knowledge to be certain there is no God. He would have to know everything, because if there is something outside his area of knowledge, that something could include God. An atheist would have to be everywhere in and out of the universe all at one time, because if there is anywhere he cannot be, God could be there.

  No atheist can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self–refuting, because knowing everything and being everywhere is to be like God. Since no one can prove ‘there is no God’, the question becomes irrelevant and so does atheism. Thus, Creation cannot be ruled out as a potential alternative.

  lol... yes, no one can prove that God does not exist. You also cannot prove that there are invisible trolls slipping in and out of the 4th dimension and that's why we have nightmares and lose our keys!

  The nice thing about science is there is a specific repeatable, testable method for testing/confirming hypotheses. God is defined in a way to be untestable. The inability to disprove something is not evidence to support its existence. Since I defined my trolls as slipping in and out of the 4th dimension, they are also untestable. We cannot disprove they exist!

  I don't have a problem with belief in God by any means, but for crying out loud there are much better lines of evidence than the philosophical garbage this guy was speweing.

  Anyway, I thought it was funny. You should read the articles from the Q&A section on that site. Their answers remind me of WTS answers to some things, but they are even more rediculous.
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Drwtsn32: Excellent post. I always love discovering how silly much of the God logic is. Another classic, is that of prayer ... it goes something like: "If you don't get what you asked for from God, it is not that he does not hear you, or that he does not care, but rather, he simply said "No." Now what part of "No" do you not understand?

  This line of reasoning started with Christian fundamentalists, yet I have heard it adopted by JWs. It sounds really cool to say, but it defies all logic. The reasoning is supposed to get the person with doubts to accept that God is listening, and his silence is just his way of saying "No."

  Still, JWs and other religionists simply fail to undertand that such lines of reasoning mean absolutely nothing. They never consider the possibility that God is just simply not there.

  Thanks again for a great post. - Jim W.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Amazing, glad you enjoyed it. Yes, prayer is a funny thing. StinkyPantz recently posted some questions from this web site http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/theist_questionnaire.htm.

  It has some great questions on prayer:

  (E) On answered prayers and miracles as proof of God's existence:

  1. When praying, do you count any prayers as unanswered, as opposed to explaining those which appear to be as part of God's plan?

  2. Hypothetically: if God didn't exist, but you had a powerful belief in him and prayed anyway, would human psychology alone make you very likely to interpret natural events and coincidences as 'answers' to those prayers?

  3. You can pray for something that is already included in God's plan, in which case he would likely make it happen anyway, or you can pray for something that isn't, which he likely wouldn't perform against his better judgment. Given these two options, are there, in your view, other compelling reasons for prayer?

  These are great questions. I do not dismiss the psychological benefit of prayer to those that believe in God. Heck, my wife really felt comforted recently when some non-JWs prayed with her. Even though she is agnostic, the prayer showed her how much those other people cared about her and that's what touched her.
• 

  greven

  Great points Dr watson!

  Also from this site:

  "Evidence

  Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

  The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

  Presuppositions are statements that all parties agree on before starting the discussion. They are choses to have a common ground onto which each can build a line of reasoning. They are not statements that cannot be proven! Far from it! They simply do not need to be proven because all parties agree upon up.

  Now creationists often start with presuppositions that are unprovable. And rightly so these are the fist target for an atheist's refutation.

  Greven
• 

  greven

  Talking about shooting yourself in the foot, this is a remarkable piece from that same site again:

  ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions

  This points out exactly their flaw: they do not look at the data and try to interpret this. No, they interpret a book and let that interpretation be their presupposition. Then they try to fit the data found with the interpretation of this book. Data that points to something the book does not is either rejected or reinterpreted.

  Greven
• 

  Abaddon

  My favourate piece of 'logic' in this vein is Intellegent Design, a self-falsifying theory;

  "We see evidence for complex design in nature, so there must be a designer."

  Mmmm, great. And the designer would by that logic require a designer, which would require a designer, which would require a...

  ... hell, at least I only need ONE event to explain initial origins, rather than an endless line of designers.

  All ID is is evolution with added god and a big illogical hole in the mddle of it. Smoke and mirrors.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Now creationists often start with presuppositions that are unprovable. And rightly so these are the fist target for an atheist's refutation.

  Exactly! Their biggest presupposition is that God exists. We cannot disprove or prove that with any objective evidence. The Christian God has been defined as untestable.

  Evolutionist/atheist presuppositions can be challenged and tested. They aren't ideas just thrown out there without any basis in factual evidence. eg, the Big Bang would mean that all matter in the universe is moving away from a central point. That is exactly the way it appears.
• 

  drwtsn32

  No, they interpret a book and let that interpretation be their presupposition. Then they try to fit the data found with the interpretation of this book.

  Yes, and they accuse scientists of doing the same: fitting all discovered facts into a specific theory. That's not how it works. If a new fact is discovered that does not make sense with the current theory, the theory is adjusted to fit all available facts. If that is not possible, they have to come up with a new theory to explain the evidence.

  Religion doesn't do that. It is completely inflexible. All facts must fit what the Bible says or the fact is flawed.
• 

  drwtsn32

  "We see evidence for complex design in nature, so there must be a designer."

  I have to admit, that is probably the single most compelling reason to believe in a creator. But it has flaws.

  Mmmm, great. And the designer would by that logic require a designer, which would require a designer, which would require a...

  Yep. Infinite causality is a bitch.

  If humans WERE specially designed by a creator, why were we not optimally created? Instead we have traits that only evolution explain: vestigal organs, inactive DNA, etc.
• 

  Abaddon

  drwtsn32:

  I have to admit, that is probably the single most compelling reason to believe in a creator. But it has flaws.

  Appearance of design is at times startling, but think of how a rock will, after a while at the bottom of a fast flowing stream, have the appearance of design due to erosion conforming it to a hydrodynamic shape based on environmental factors. If a rock can by blind process mimic a CAD/CAM process, how much more so can organisms that can pass on data, which by definition of being passed on, is an indicator of adaptation to their environment (i.e., if they weren't the right genes for the environment, the organism would more likely die before passing them on).

  If humans WERE specially designed by a creator, why were we not optimally created? Instead we have traits that only evolution explain: vestigal organs, inactive DNA, etc.

  Ah! This is why they came up with the Intelligent Design theory. It explains how screwed up 'creation' is (you want to know about the clitoris of the spotted hyena?) by taking the vaugest most non-literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation account possible (thus evolution with added God), and shakling this to a presuppositonalistic assumption that if it looks designed it is designed.

  I personally believe that Intelligent Design is the result of the forces of natural selection acting upon Creationism. Creationism has little if any credibility (as Jerry Bergman has helped me establish). It is a moribund theory, you can hear its death rattle.

  Faced with a choice of adapt or die, it adapts. Evolution with god at the begining. By adopting the greatest part of its theory from evolution, ID seeks to make itself irrefutable; just like some butterflies mimic colouration as a defensive feature.

  Obviously the core belief is flawed, as pointed out, but you will see that IDers will do almost anything to avoid giving a straight answer to the question 'where did the designer come from'?

  The desire to insist on the neccesity of a designer as a primal cause (despite the fact it contradicts the founding precept of ID) is an ideological one.

  Some people want to believe in god. This is fine, good luck to them. However, if they admitted that they cannot prove god, and had to keep it as a personal belief that couldn't in any way impinge upon the rights or activities or other, then they would have to accept changes they are not willing to accept; the standard tired arguments that if you are an atheist you don't have a moral code. That's in addition to any mitigation of hopes they have for post death awareness.

  So, ID serves as a method of insisting that personal unprovable beliefs should effect people other than those who hold them, as it insists that there is a god.

  Now, this ideology might not be explict. Lots of people probably sincerely believe in ID. But just as we can look at the beliefs of the Borg and see WHY they are there (control etc.), even if a Borgette wouldn't agree, so to the ideological motivations of ID have nothing to do with evidence or the apparent reason for their existence and everything to do with holding onto a world view of a reasonably educated goat herd and a carpenter's apprentice who lived thousands of years ago.