Atheism: an irrational worldview

[Gup20]

So now you are redefining what an atheist is in order to prove your point?

The dictionary defines atheism as "one who doesn't believe in any gods". I went to several atheistic websites, and all of them swear up and down that the only definition of "atheism" is one who doesn't believe in any gods, yet when pressed for what they believe about origins, materialism, etc, they almost uniformly believe in materialism, naturalism, evolution or empiricism (or some combination of these).

Let me ask you - when you were an atheist did you believe in evolution? Where did you think everything came from? Did you think everything came about naturally? Did you believe the only way to determine truth was by observation and experience?

 

[Steven2006]

What do you do when they tell you that they don't believe what you believe because of what they believe?

For example, what do you do when people say "Jesus? The guy from the bible? I don't believe the bible because science has proven the it wrong."

An informed Christian will have an answer for this questioning of the faith that is them. They will say "I don't accept your belief that the Bible has been proven wrong, and here is why."

You missed my point. For example, Matt Wade has insisted over and over again your are wrong about your description about what an atheist believes since he used to be one. You keep arguing that point, if he wasn't saved that would be counter productive and a waste of time.

"That's what you don't get...atheists don't believe that are things that exist are material. An atheist is one that doesn't believe in God. Where does this "all things that exist are material" come from? As an atheist I certainly believed in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, karma, mother earth, etc). I just didn't believe there was a God that created all these things."

The atheist that doesn't believe that everything is material isn't an atheist... he is perhaps an agnostic"

Who cares if he technically should be an agnostic or an atheist. If a person believes what he believes and considers himself an atheist, fine then deal biblically with what he actually believes not any preconceived ideas of what you thought he belived.

 

[Gup20]

You missed my point. For example, Matt Wade has insisted over and over again your are wrong about your description about what an atheist believes since he used to be one. You keep arguing that point, if he wasn't saved that would be counter productive and a waste of time.

"That's what you don't get...atheists don't believe that are things that exist are material. An atheist is one that doesn't believe in God. Where does this "all things that exist are material" come from? As an atheist I certainly believed in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, karma, mother earth, etc). I just didn't believe there was a God that created all these things."

The atheist that doesn't believe that everything is material isn't an atheist... he is perhaps an agnostic"

Who cares if he technically should be an agnostic or an atheist. If a person believes what he believes and considers himself an atheist, fine then deal biblically with what he actually believes not any preconceived ideas of what you thought he belived.

By pointing out his inconsistency, I'm doing just that - I am dealing with his preconceptions and presuppositions.

 

[Steven2006]

By pointing out his inconsistency, I'm doing just that - I am dealing with his preconceptions and presuppositions.

If you are witnessing to someone and tell them what they believe rather than ask them and respond to that answer it will be less effective.

If you ask "don't you believe X,Y,& Z? and they respond, no what I actually believe M,R & P. Well then start directly dealing biblically with M, R & P. Why waste time arguing about X, Y, & Z?

 

[matt wade]

Let me ask you - when you were an atheist did you believe in evolution? Where did you think everything came from? Did you think everything came about naturally? Did you believe the only way to determine truth was by observation and experience?

I believed evolution could be true, but wasn't sure about it. I equally believed that we could have been dropped off by aliens, but wasn't sure about it either.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The argument is not that Atheist do not hold to two conflicting ideas at the same time -- rather the argument is that "they do".

Therefore disproving that opening statement cannot be done by showing yet another area where atheists are being inconsistent when it comes to "naturalism" and a universe that simply "blows up" to come into being.

If you begin with nothing - and all you have to account for the mass and energy appearing is the circular argument that mass and energy in the universe come from the mass and energy of the big bang, then you don't have a gateway or a bridge for claiming that mass and energy eventually develop their own ability to apply "logic" to problems. How did mass + energy come to even "know what a problem is" let alone "apply logic to solve it"?

The sentient universe, sentient matter or sentient energy-matter problem has yet to be solved.

I don't see how they believe in "two things at once" or two condratictory things. I believe that premise is flawed.

to reduce the point down to an illustration -- you can't claim "I only believe in marbles" and then say "but marbles came up with their own system of calculus so they can estimate change in volume over time".

it simply "makes no sense" to make such a wild claim about "nothing but marbles".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

to reduce the point down to an illustration -- you can't claim "I only believe in marbles" and then say "but marbles came up with their own system of calculus so they can estimate change in volume over time".

it simply "makes no sense" to make such a wild claim about "nothing but marbles".

in Christ,

Bob

You miss a major denominator in an atheist view point. Given a long enough time line most things become probable.

 

[Gup20]

If you are witnessing to someone and tell them what they believe rather than ask them and respond to that answer it will be less effective.

If you ask "don't you believe X,Y,& Z? and they respond, no what I actually believe M,R & P. Well then start directly dealing biblically with M, R & P. Why waste time arguing about X, Y, & Z?

This is the "Don't answer, answer strategy."

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
​

So when the atheist says "logic is just a chemical reaction in the human brain", you respond "I don't accept that to be true - but if it were true, cotradictions could be true on Mars where there are no human brains.

 

[Gup20]

You miss a major denominator in an atheist view point. Given a long enough time line most things become probable.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/natural-processes-origin-of-life

The line of "impossibility" are odds greater than 10-50. To put this in perspective, it is estimated there are 1080 atoms in the universe.

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, PhD, materials science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry,calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10-191 ​

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is:

1 x 10-40,000 ​

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. . . . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

 

[BobRyan]

You miss a major denominator in an atheist view point. Given a long enough time line most things become probable.

Zero times 100 trillion is still zero.

Adding a larger exponent to the multiplier does not make zero "something else".

Thus the atheist is free to imagine that "given enough time nothing but marbles will eventually invent calculus to solve change-in-volume problems" - but everyone else is equally free to see the paucity in logic in such wild schemes.

Atheists are "forced" to engage in that kind of fairytale because they need to get to the same endpoint that one gets to with "In the Beginning GOD CREATED" but they only have "marbles" to work with -- not God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[thoran]

“The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic.”
Strawman!
“He believes that everything that exists is material”

*SIGH*
Nooooooo, all inanimate objects and living things are made of something on the periodic table or an undiscovered element that should be on the periodic table, and everything on the periodic table could be described using the umbrella term “material”. But, there are all sorts of things that aren’t made of atoms; light, heat, wales, etc.

“—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical.”

*FACEPALM*

“You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic.”

Actually, logic explains how you stubbed your toe.

“ Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world,”

Atheists are obsessed with logic to the point that this kind of anti-logic logic sounds insane to Atheists. Logic is ALL Atheists truely believe in.

“yet he uses them to try to reason.”

There is no “yet”. the FIRST thing you said was nonsense.

“This is inconsistent.”

No, your strawman is inconsistant.

“He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview.”

How does that work exactly? No, really, explain to me the process of how exactly one does that. No word games, no metaphores, just tell me how exactly you think they do that.

“The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.”

No, logic cannot exist according to your strawman, and that strawman was extremely stupid.
​

 

[BobRyan]

No, logic cannot exist according to your strawman, and that strawman was extremely stupid.
​

Even atheists can figure out that rocks don't reason.. they will have to admit that rocks have no "logic" of any kind.
Atheists are stuck with rocks... (they start off with gas, dust and rocks from the accretion disc of the sun to get an Einstein)

But all the properties of Einstein had to come from that rock from which he evolved... and that rock had no such properties such as reason or even the ability to "gain" reason.

Zero times 10 trillion is still zero.

But in fact the situation for atheist is much worse than that....

Eukaryotes can't reason either... and Rocks can't even make it to Eukaryote, much less to rabbit or horse or Einstein.

 

[thoran]

Even atheists can figure out that rocks don't reason.. they will have to admit that rocks have no "logic" of any kind.
Atheists are stuck with rocks... (they start off with gas, dust and rocks from the accretion disc of the sun to get an Einstein)

But all the properties of Einstein had to come from that rock from which he evolved... and that rock had no such properties such as reason or even the ability to "gain" reason.

Zero times 10 trillion is still zero.

But in fact the situation for atheist is much worse than that....

Eukaryotes can't reason either... and Rocks can't even make it to Eukaryote, much less to rabbit or horse or Einstein.

What [snipped] are you talking about? Rocks obey logic all the time! Newton’s laws were BASED ON the behaviour or objects like rocks. Everything in the universe runs on logic. ESPECIALLY rocks. Throw a rock and it hits something, everything that happens can be explained mathomatically.

“But all the properties of Einstein had to come from that rock from which he evolved“

*ROLLS EYES*

THIS is why Atheists think religion makes you stupid.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Zombie alert. This seven-year-old thread is closed.