Quote# 2414

The basic fundamental beliefs (or presuppositions) of the atheistic philosophy claims that we live in a universe that is eternal (meaning, not created), and that the universe operates by randomness and chance. And that all that exists is matter in motion. So, we conclude the following.... 1.There can't be any absolutes (since this contradicts the belief that the universe is random and chance-like (a Darwinion presupposition as well) 2.There can not be anything supernatural or anything non-material. 3.We can't know anything (since knowledge may evolve) A consistent atheist would have to live his life not doing or saying anything, but just waiting. If there are no absolutes or non-material things then laws of science and math can't exist. Neither can the laws of logic exist (thereby stripping the atheist of his capacity to debate or reason about anything, or have any sort of intellectual discourse). Morals don't exist (so the atheist can't throw in the argument that since God is all-good and all-powerful, then He can't exist since evil exists as well. Yet, evil presupposes a standard of good, and that standard is God).

DanTheMan, Rapture Ready 13 Comments [3/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Username:
Comment:



1 | bottom

Dr. Jimes Tooper

Why should an atheist do nothing and just wait? What does that have to do with disbelief in the supernatural?


11/18/2011 10:03:17 AM

David B.

Oh goody, a fundie trying to use logic, it's playtime!

"The basic fundamental beliefs (or presuppositions) of the atheistic philosophy claims that[...]"

...beflief in gods is neither necessary nor desirable. Yes?

"[...]we live in a universe that is eternal (meaning, not created), and that the universe operates by randomness and chance."

Nope, there's no reason an atheist must believe in an eternal universe, nor is it a dichotomy between an eternal universe and a created one, it is quite possible the universe has an 'origin' without having a creator.

Neither is it a necessary consequence of atheism that the universe progress by random chance. In fact I know of no-one, atheist or otherwise, that believes this, since it is so contrary to observable reality. Certainly QM suggests there is an element of chance in the universe, hence it evolves stochastically rather than strictly deterministically, but the physical laws that appear to hold sway here are anything but random. Not that this in anyway implies there be a 'lawgiver', which would be equivocation.

"And that all that exists is matter in motion."

By which I will charitably assume you mean space, time, mass and energy. True that is pretty much everything we have any evidence for, but nothing is stopping any atheist from believing in ghosts, reincarnation, animism, gestalts or witchcraft if they really feel like it.

11/18/2011 10:31:35 AM

David B.

"So, we conclude the following.... 1.There can't be any absolutes"

That itself is an absolute, hence contradicts itself.

"There can not be anything supernatural or anything non-material."

Some atheists certainly do believe that, but methodological naturalism is separate to atheism.

"3.We can't know anything (since knowledge may evolve)"

Knowledge has to change (i.e. evolve) for us to learn, and without learning, we can't know. So it is necessary for knowledge to evolve for us to know. The correct conclusion should be "we can't know anything unless knowledge may evolve."

"A consistent atheist would have to live his life not doing or saying anything, but just waiting."

Non sequitur. It does not follow from any of your premises, incorrect as they are, that a 'consistent atheist' should do nothing.

"If there are no absolutes or non-material things then laws of science and math can't exist."

True, but irrelevent as atheism does not preclude absolutes.

"Neither can the laws of logic exist"

Ditto.

"(thereby stripping the atheist of his capacity to debate or reason about anything, or have any sort of intellectual discourse)"

Yet strangely it is not the atheists that seem completely unable to use reason. Go figure.

11/18/2011 10:45:24 AM

David B.

"Morals don't exist"

Moral absolutes don't (under your false premises). Correctly, neither atheism nor material naturalism says anything about the existence of moral absolutes. Whether they do or not, no case has been made that subjectively or collectively determined relative morality is in anyway inferior to the subjectively determined moral law of a god.

"(so the atheist can't throw in the argument that since God is all-good and all-powerful, then He can't exist since evil exists as well. Yet, evil presupposes a standard of good, and that standard is God)."

It is quite possible to construct a standard of good from a human moral perspective and show how God does not meet it. It then falls on the apologist for God to explain why such a standard does not apply, which is called the evidential problem of evil. The usual theodicies are usually one of; we can't judge God (in which case it is impossible to judge him good), everything God does is good because it's God (in which case good and evil are arbitrary and there are no moral absolutes), "mysterious ways" (in which case everything anyone believes about their god could be a God inspired lie done for equally mysterious reasons), it's Satan (who could only operate with God's permission, allowing evil is no different to commiting it), it's God's punishment (in which case God is a douche and so are you).

11/18/2011 10:53:19 AM

Anon-e-moose



'Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires.'

-Bertrand Russell

Also, his teapot. Your argument is invalid.

11/18/2011 11:07:20 AM

David B.

@Anon,

Awesome quote, I'd not heard that one before.



(From: http://controversy.wearscience.com/)

11/18/2011 11:12:21 AM

Quantum Mechanic

I didn't finish the first sentence.
Hey Dan, make up shit much?

2/3/2012 7:50:20 AM

Dr.Shrinker

First of all, I invite you to learn what the term, "conviction to within a reasonable margin of error" means. By that I mean really learn, not just run with a superficial definition. I emphasize that, because the aforementioned running seems to be the natural inclination of the RR crowd, as evidenced by their appalling lack of understanding about the theory of evolution.

Second, I suggest that you learn about how objects and forces interact. The more you learn, the more you will see that the universe is not governed by random chance. This is particularly important when discussing evolution (since you insist on cramming Darwin into the discussion for some reason).

Third, I would suggest that you get over your fear of actually learning something. Yes, when the body of available knowledge grows there will be new things for you to learn. Don't see this as scary: see it for the wonder that it is. It is far more energizing than waiting around for your god to lift you up into heaven so you can enjoy the suffering of all those who know more than you with sadistic glee.

Do this, then we'll talk.

2/3/2012 8:36:02 AM

Rekk

From Dictionary.com

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Example Sentences Origin
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ism, adjective, noun
pro·a·the·ism, noun

2/9/2012 9:31:28 AM

Quantum Mechanic

Wrong.
Stop wasting air.

8/26/2012 8:16:40 AM

Kanna

Gee, I didn't know I needed all that. I just don't believe in god.

1/10/2017 10:02:31 PM

Swede

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

The Bible doesn't have any absolutes either, silly-nilly.
"Thou shalt not kill", unless your god tells you to.

"Darwinion"?

Just because knowledge evolves, we DO know things.

A "consistent atheist" doesn't believe in gods. That is all. Laws of science and math are all secular, so atheists have no problem with them.

You're making things wah-hay too complicated, dearie. Just think about how you think about all gods beside your god, and push that thought one god further.

God is not all-good and all-powerful, even according to the Bible. He orders his people to kill others, and he can't heal people.

That standard might just as well be The Force, or Gandalf.

1/11/2017 4:18:12 AM

Shepard Solus

You disgrace the name of Gavin Free's friend and co-host.

1/11/2017 12:15:54 PM

1 | top: comments page