atheists refuted

[Friend]

The universe as we see it came to be through the existence of that simplest of molecules Hydrogen and the effect of gravity. All the galaxies stars planets and everything on our little rock came about from a known process. No creator, but the natural evolution of matter according to understandable and testable laws.

Now the naive little parable may work on the uneducated and those ignorant of basic science but really it is but a piece of foolishness. Very much in the same class as telling little children that it is Santa that delivers presents to them at christmas.

To complement the debate on atheism

I'm wondering from the idea that some people is convinced that the universe is composed of elements , so this indicate the absence of creator of it.

Those who know the installation of atoms .... They know that it is impossible to be found in nature by accident.

You should wonder how each element of its unique characteristics be stable and save from changing ??? in spite of that all the elements consisting of the same...components ...Protons, neutrons and electrons
According to the theory of evolution it is convincing to discover every day a new element consists from the changing in the number of these components in any atom ???
Levels of energy resulting from the movement of electrons also unique in each element??? to give the element the advantage of exclusivity.
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God​

​

Allah said : in Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"[ 41:53]​

Just one question to all atheists ​

You have piece of land ...and you leave it for ten years, To find a house was built on your land.. designed in a beautiful manner ... Do you believe that this palace was built alone by chance ??? Considering that building materials elements existed in nature, such as water and sand, timber, iron ....​

Simply the composition of the complex and delicate human body prove for each person that there is great creator created it.​

 

[c0de]

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God

This is why none of the great scientific minds were atheists.
(Not even Charles Darwin himself)

 

[Postmaster]

I despise Atheism (but not Atheists). I have much respect for Agnosticism, I would consider myself one but I feel organised religion is socially/divinely crucial to teach pass morals and philosophies to the many, the more the better.

 

[Postmaster]

Just want to a make correction when I say agnosticism its not that I have any doubt that God exsists because I don't. I mean it as he's uncomprehensible. So I would say weak Agnostic.

 

[wil]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God | Antony Flew

and his book a few years later...

Amazon.com: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese: Books

 

[Postmaster]

That’s amazing isn’t it lol.. Maybe at the age of 81 he started to question and worry more about what happens in the afterlife and his views mutated. The best part about all this is him being a famous philosopher has made his 81 year old life fulfilled by his high profile conversation almost like it was intelligently intend to serve Gods cause.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste friend,

thank you for the post.

I'm wondering from the idea that some people is convinced that the universe is composed of elements , so this indicate the absence of creator of it.​

i'm not aware of any atheists, and i know quite a few, that hold the view that since the universe is comprised of particles that would indicate, in and of itself, a lack of a creator being.

perhaps you know some atheists that hold this view?

Those who know the installation of atoms .... They know that it is impossible to be found in nature by accident.

it would depend on a beings understanding of the science involved here. most beings versed enough on science to understand the universe is comprised of particles are also aware that the arrangement of said particles has nothing to do with accidents or chance. chemistry is not accidental.

You should wonder how each element of its unique characteristics be stable and save from changing ???
​

all particles in the universe undergo change insofar as we've been able to discern. perhaps there are some particles that do not... however, humanity hasn't found them yet.

According to the theory of evolution it is convincing to discover every day a new element consists from the changing in the number of these components in any atom ???

umm... what?

the theory of evolution is concerned with the frequency of alleles in a given population and has nothing to do with discovering new elements. this sort of work is properly the work of physicists and they use tools like the Large Hadron Particle Collider to do some of their work.

Levels of energy resulting from the movement of electrons also unique in each element??? to give the element the advantage of exclusivity.

i'm not really sure what you're getting at here but it really has nothing to do with biological evolution nor, from what i can tell, why a being would be an atheist if they held the view that the universe is comprised of particles.

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God

i realize that argument from authority is quite fashionable amongst Muslims but, by and large, the same cannot be said for the rest of us. you quoted this quote of Francis Bacon because you already accept that there is a creator being, if you did not accept that you wouldn't have quoted him. in any case, a quote without context can be made to affirm or deny any position which is brought forth. i would be curious to read the essay from whence this quote was taken.

​

Just one question to all atheists

​

You have piece of land ...and you leave it for ten years, To find a house was built on your land.. designed in a beautiful manner ... Do you believe that this palace was built alone by chance ???
​

if course not. in fact, i can drive to nearly every city or town and see people building houses. i can read the internet and find out how to build a house of my own and then do so. i can hire people to build a house that i design. in fact there is nothing mysterious or unexplained in house building.

​

Simply the composition of the complex and delicate human body prove for each person that there is great creator created it.​

no, it doesn't. it may well do so for you but such apologetics are hardly worth considering, in my estimation. far too often the apologist lacks any real understanding of the atheist position and simply burns down his own strawman.

frankly i find the Muslim scientific apologetic quite poor and i often feel quite bad for the Muslims that engage in such actions for it seem to demonstrate a lack of empathy or concern for the being with whom they are speaking... not to mention the appalling misunderstandings of basic science that are so oft found in such apologetic work.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

This is why none of the great scientific minds were atheists.
(Not even Charles Darwin himself)

oh? what an interesting bias.

of course one shouldn't base ones religious views, or lack thereof, on science or scientists for it (science) doesn't work like a religion.. it's always changing its body of knowlege.

one should, in my view, base their religious view or lack thereof on their own careful consideration and experience. i cannot imagine any sort of benefit by adopting the opinion of another in this regard.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God | Antony Flew

and his book a few years later...

Amazon.com: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese: Books

based on what i just read there.. it would seem that Mr. Flew is a philosopher rather than a scientist that is engaged in the study of the origin of the universe, as it were.

he seemed to have thought that biological evolution was somehow talking about the origin of the universe and came to the rather odd conclusion that since biological evolution doesn't explain chemistry or origins of things (remember... biological evolution starts with the premis that biological organisms exist and only seeks to explain how it is that biological species share so many of the same alleles and yet have different ones.) that there must have been a creator being of some sort. he says he's more of a deist and plainly states that he views of the God of the Christian and Muslim as some sort of Oriental despot.. like a cosmic Saddam Hussein.

but... i don't get it...

because Mr. Flew has changed his opinion that should have some bearing on my view, for instance, of a creator deity?

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

That’s amazing isn’t it lol.. Maybe at the age of 81 he started to question and worry more about what happens in the afterlife and his views mutated. The best part about all this is him being a famous philosopher has made his 81 year old life fulfilled by his high profile conversation almost like it was intelligently intend to serve Gods cause.

he said that he still didn't believe in an afterlife..

metta,

~v

 

[Postmaster]

Oh thanks I missed that part, I just fast read it.

You never know he may well change his mind again and turn back to an Athiest or he may even start believing in the afterlife too.. who knows haha

 

[Friend]

i'm not aware of any atheists, and i know quite a few, that hold the view that since the universe is comprised of particles that would indicate, in and of itself, a lack of a creator being.

I know how to think atheists

it would depend on a beings understanding of the science involved here. most beings versed enough on science to understand the universe is comprised of particles are also aware that the arrangement of said particles has nothing to do with accidents or chance. chemistry is not accidental.

In this subject I respond to this opinion of another Member here

NewDawn[/b] ]
The universe as we see it came to be through the existence of that simplest of molecules Hydrogen and the effect of gravity.

Therefore I indicated to the elements which all components of the universe is composed of it .
It is impossible that there is an element of oxygen and hydrogen in nature as a result of the transformations natural automatic.. At an unchanged rates ...

all particles in the universe undergo change insofar as we've been able to discern. perhaps there are some particles that do not... however, humanity hasn't found them yet.

Also, the difference in atomic structure, which gives each element his qualities ...give evidence that it is not a shift by nature..

umm... what?

the theory of evolution is concerned with the frequency of alleles in a given population and has nothing to do with discovering new elements. this sort of work is properly the work of physicists and they use tools like the Large Hadron Particle Collider to do some of their work.

I know that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the elements.. But creatures consisting of organic materials which is composed of origin from elements and atoms ...The most important of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen..

in fact physics and chemistry are interdependent in the study of the relationship between elements of life and energy...

general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic ..this means that the changes in the life in this world ( according to the theory) is possible at the level of the cell and it's components, including smaller elements of its composition.

why a being would be an atheist if they held the view that the universe is comprised of particles.

The idea of atheism is linked to the absence of creator for the universe..


The solar system.. it is part of the universe

The atom...comprising all the elements of life

It is impossible that this installation atomic elements similar to the format of the of the astronomical solar !!! ... is linked to self-development...such as the theory of evolution .​

i realize that argument from authority is quite fashionable amongst Muslims but, by and large, the same cannot be said for the rest of us. you quoted this quote of Francis Bacon because you already accept that there is a creator being, if you did not accept that you wouldn't have quoted him. in any case, a quote without context can be made to affirm or deny any position which is brought forth. i would be curious to read the essay from whence this quote was taken.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/may.2000/religion.htm

if course not. in fact, i can drive to nearly every city or town and see people building houses. i can read the internet and find out how to build a house of my own and then do so. i can hire people to build a house that i design. in fact there is nothing mysterious or unexplained in house building.

Well ... Is it possible to established building without maker or creator ?
Is it possible to develop sand unify with iron or steel to form building which designed in complex manner (or even simple) ??

It is like the idea of the theory of evolution to a large extent.

frankly i find the Muslim scientific apologetic quite poor and i often feel quite bad for the Muslims that engage in such actions for it seem to demonstrate a lack of empathy or concern for the being with whom they are speaking... not to mention the appalling misunderstandings of basic science that are so oft found in such apologetic work.

I respect your opinion ............. That's yours

 

[Quahom1]

To complement the debate on atheism

I'm wondering from the idea that some people is convinced that the universe is composed of elements , so this indicate the absence of creator of it.​

Those who know the installation of atoms .... They know that it is impossible to be found in nature by accident.

You should wonder how each element of its unique characteristics be stable and save from changing ??? in spite of that all the elements consisting of the same...components ...Protons, neutrons and electrons

According to the theory of evolution it is convincing to discover every day a new element consists from the changing in the number of these components in any atom ???
Levels of energy resulting from the movement of electrons also unique in each element??? to give the element the advantage of exclusivity.
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God​

Allah said : in Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"[ 41:53]​

Just one question to all atheists ​

You have piece of land ...and you leave it for ten years, To find a house was built on your land.. designed in a beautiful manner ... Do you believe that this palace was built alone by chance ??? Considering that building materials elements existed in nature, such as water and sand, timber, iron ....​

Simply the composition of the complex and delicate human body prove for each person that there is great creator created it.​

How can man become, despite the abundance of material required to construct him, unless there is an architect to design his construction...good point. The best thing random chance (on a non sentient level), has shown on macro scale so far is a hurricane, or a mutated gene (causing death), or a space shuttle burning up on re-entry...

Blue eyes, brown skin, thick soled feet, are not random mutations at all.

 

[c0de]

oh? what an interesting bias.

of course one shouldn't base ones religious views, or lack thereof, on science or scientists for it (science) doesn't work like a religion.. it's always changing its body of knowlege.

one should, in my view, base their religious view or lack thereof on their own careful consideration and experience. i cannot imagine any sort of benefit by adopting the opinion of another in this regard.

metta,

~v

I was actually replying to the quote of Francis Bacon....

I never said I base my religious views on science dude.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hello Friend,

My point was that there are natural physical processes that explain everything we can observe.Gravity and hydrogen/helium alone can explain the inevitable creation of all other elements. However each atom has a sub-atomic structure that is clearly not built on particles but in waves and the diagrams you post are simplistic representations that ignore that. What happens on the sub-atomic level where reality itself becomes ambiguous is not fully understood. And as I understand science acknowledges this.

One of the reasons I remain agnostic, or at least repelled by dogmatic monotheisms, is the implausibility of the arguments given by believers who seek to marry highly spurious ancient dialogues with an ever changing modern science. To say that Francis Bacon, Charles Darwin or Ibn Al-Haytham were believers as though that clinches the argument seems to my mind foolish. They may have been smart and influential individuals but each of them was still just a man and even the very smartest of people are not immune from the tendency toward assumption. Additionally what a man puts on public record is often political and may not represent a private opinion. I see religious sites that try to claim Einstein was a believer yet whenever you read the quoted phrases they are out of context, incomplete and ignore his unequivocal statements to the contrary. This tendency to cherry pick dissected statements is natural in the medium of discussion to propose a concise argument but to have faith in it as definitive in the way you seem to propose is only self-serving.

As an agnostic who enjoys discussion I know better than to think anything I say here will make a blind bit of difference to those who have already made up their minds in favour of their usually geographical standard model of faith. So which one is right? The ancient Australian aboriginal concepts of dreamtime seem to encompass and describe the underlying quantum reality we are just begining to discover and explore far, far more precisely than any of the highly dubious claims of the worlds major religions. We have no grand unified theory as yet. We have a few laws that seem to be universal but even those we do not fully comprehend. I think every genuine scientist recognises and admits this. Theists alone claim it a done deal and I have little doubt that when the scientific models progress and change the theists again will shift, dig into their holy books and cherry pick a line here and a line there to say "we knew that all along"! This is the nature of the believer. A much more interesting question is why they persist in doing so.


Diffuant

 

[Saltmeister]

As an agnostic who enjoys discussion I know better than to think anything I say here will make a blind bit of difference to those who have already made up their minds in favour of their usually geographical standard model of faith. So which one is right? The ancient Australian aboriginal concepts of dreamtime seem to encompass and describe the underlying quantum reality we are just begining to discover and explore far, far more precisely than any of the highly dubious claims of the worlds major religions. We have no grand unified theory as yet. We have a few laws that seem to be universal but even those we do not fully comprehend. I think every genuine scientist recognises and admits this. Theists alone claim it a done deal and I have little doubt that when the scientific models progress and change the theists again will shift, dig into their holy books and cherry pick a line here and a line there to say "we knew that all along"! This is the nature of the believer. A much more interesting question is why they persist in doing so.

What annoys me about this refuting atheism and refuting theism thing is that it often stinks of arrogance where one side derides the other as stupid or irrational.

Atheism, to me, is just as rational as theism and vice versa. Neither party is more intelligent than the other. While one side derides the other as the belief in fanciful fairy tales, one could also argue that such sentiments are ignorant of the legitimate worship and veneration of heroes and legends as a source of inspiration in one's personal life, or a way of fitting into one's community or society. Such devotion and dedication may even be seen as defining or conceptualising one's relationship with God, assuming hypothetically that he exists.

The issue here, however, is objectivity. Science as a tradition has as one of its guiding principles for its own evolution and doctrinal regulation the notion of objectivity with regards to whatever it defines or models in the universe.

Science has no concept of God firstly because nobody has proven or disproven the existence of God. A major problem, however, of including God in scientific tradition is that secondly, God has free will and it would be pretty hard to put him in a laboratory to do a brain scan. Science can't have an objective concept of God and anything that isn't objective doesn't belong in scientific tradition.

But God not being in scientific tradition doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Lack of an objective concept of God also doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Militant proponents of atheism use the lack of a concept of God in scientific tradition to impose their opinions on theists, using their role as keepers of a tradition based on the principle of objectivity as their justification. Militant proponents of theism use the arguments you've described above.

The arrogance on both sides manifests itself in the fact that none of the arguments used on both sides to refute the other are objective.

As human beings we should be able to rationalise our lives however we like, even to include mythical and legendary agents. The level of rationality depends on how useful and constructive one's reasoning is in one's personal life as well as to wider society. We are to do whatever we will with our minds to make our lives and this world a better place.

What I see as arrogance is people claiming objectivity, regardless of whether their primary devotion is science or religion. To me it doesn't matter. Why does everything have to be so objective? Is that the primary purpose of life, to be objective about everything we do? I think such demands are offensive and disrespectful to anyone who is told that they are not being objective.

To me it is more important that one's beliefs are valuable, meaningful, memorable, constructive, noble and honourable. Where there are differences, one must build bridges. One must try to understand.

Atheism and science aren't the same thing. Science is dedicated to objectivity. Atheism is not. Nor is religion or theism. It is ok for atheism, religion and theism to be wrong. It is not, however, ok for science to be wrong. But if science is wrong, someone should attempt to change it rather than refuting it.

Atheists and theists are right about one thing with regards to each other. Neither of each of them are objective in their beliefs. There is no clear winner.

I'm not saying this thread is pointless, but having said what I've said, if I'm going to be taking sides or playing devil's advocate, I'll only be doing it as a game and sport. I usually ignore these threads but curiosity got the better of me.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hello Saltmeister,

You are a wise man indeed to steer clear. When people talk of such matters their only audience is really themselves.

 

[Paladin]

Discussions such as this are never aimed at uncovering any profound truth, rather each side must of necessity build a bulwark against the encroachment of the opposing ideology. Atheists can't give an inch lest the fairy tale world of religion draws a ridiculous conclusion based on sloppy logic, and the religious pound away trying to get the atheistic to see that the syllogisms used cannot comprehend the depth and breadth of all that is.
Both sides can become pretty smug and self satisfied in their ideas not realizing they are both involved in a false dilemma.

 

[Nick_A]

Discussions such as this are never aimed at uncovering any profound truth, rather each side must of necessity build a bulwark against the encroachment of the opposing ideology. Atheists can't give an inch lest the fairy tale world of religion draws a ridiculous conclusion based on sloppy logic, and the religious pound away trying to get the atheistic to see that the syllogisms used cannot comprehend the depth and breadth of all that is.
Both sides can become pretty smug and self satisfied in their ideas not realizing they are both involved in a false dilemma.

Science and religion can no longer be reconciled in society because it has been pressured into surrendering for collective self imprtance the "love of wisdom" Plato defined as philosophy. Society is conditioned to further its opposing agendas and the recognition of the need for wisdom just gets in the way since we are told what to do and believe.

There are those that have reconciled faith and reason or the essence of religion and science but they've had the courage to buck societal pressures and keep the love of wisdom alive in themselves and the humility to simultaneously recognize its value for achieving a human perspective while admitting that they don't have it.

 

[c0de]

My point was that there are natural physical processes that explain everything we can observe.Gravity and hydrogen/helium alone can explain the inevitable creation of all other elements.

What is "gravity"?

What is "force"???

Where does "gravity" come from?

What causes it?

Giving a name to such phenomenon does
not mean that you have explained them.



==================================================

I (for one) NEVER claimed "objectivity" in any such discussion.
I know I am biased, I am a theist, and this is my view of existence.

*(sticks a flag deep in the ground)*

As bias is inherent in everyone's point of view. Therefore:
anyone who claims "objectivity" is either lying, or blind.
==================================================