Quote# 56639

Atheists believe in no god. It relies on scientific findings and analysis of those findings. They do not believe in faith, the bible, the Qur’an, the torah, the rig-Veda, or any other holy scripture. Since they do not believe in this, they rely on other's scientific research to tell them how the universe started or what happens when they die.

Atheism has major flaws; I will only outline three in this short but brief blog post.


The First Flaw

In my opinion, atheism already contradicts itself for not believing in faith. They believe that science does not rely on faith. Completely wrong...Science does rely on faith. A scientific inquiry or theory that has been developed must be accepted by others. They must have FAITH in that theory so they can BELIEVE it is true. Example, for hundreds of years scientists declared that damage to the spinal cord is irreversible...FALSE! The spinal cord does regenerate, but at a much slower pace than any other part in the body.

The Second Flaw

Atheists claim to be "free thinkers" when evidently they're not. They prescribe to scientific theories that have been developed by humans. This clearly does defeat the purpose of free thinking because in effect they only are listening to one source (science in this case). Me as a Christian I look at one source the bible, but I take it as a whole and find the deeper meaning to the words. Not just like "So the chicken came before the egg gotcha" (atheist perspective) vs. "So Why did the chicken come first" (Christian/religious perspective).


The Third Flaw

How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?

The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? Does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.

Atheism serves no goal in one's life except Surviving. This goal is one that not even I can comprehend for if your only goal would be for surviving the truly you should look deeper into what life truly means

Nikolas Lopez, Atom 40 Comments [1/19/2009 1:32:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By:

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

anevilmeme

Word salad.

1/19/2009 1:44:37 AM

Hi

"short but brief"
lulz

""So the chicken came before the egg gotcha" (atheist perspective)"
no; 'twas the egg that did hatch before the chicken.

Re the third flaw:
The scientific method is not designed to produce "truth"; it is designed to approximate it to the highest degree that we lowly humans are capable of accomplishing. I don't suppose you can point out a better method?

(I notice all of the "flaws" return to his idea that atheism and science are equivalent)

1/19/2009 2:02:11 AM

Colonel Catastrophe

About the first one:

Why couldn't I live my life in the assumption that there is no God because he is highly improbable given the known laws and theories of the universe? That's not faith, it's reason. It's reasonable to assume that, given the staggering statistical numbers against, there is no God.

1/19/2009 2:16:44 AM

A Friend

Alright you stated your opinions on atheism now provide proof for your position. Oh what's that, you don't have any. That's right. All you guys ever do is attack because you have no proof(goddidit doesn't count). The burden is on you to provide evidence for a god and until you do so I will continue to not believe.

1/19/2009 2:47:16 AM

Old Viking

If this is what they're resorting to now we've as good as won.

1/19/2009 2:51:47 AM

wackadoodle

"DUR DUR YOU HOW DO YOU KNOW SCIENCE IS RIGHT! SCIENCE ISNT PERFECT! BUT MY BRONZ AGE FAIRY TALES ARE!"

1/19/2009 3:02:56 AM

JonnyTruant

You've obviously never read the scientific method.

Also, regarding your first 'flaw'... Christopher Reeves and countless others who were permanently paralyzed due to spinal injury would like to have a word with you.

Under your second flaw, we do ask why something is so. That's how we come to the conclusion that the egg predates the chicken by several million years. You see, the ovum is a necessary part of sexual reproduction and is a very important evolutionary stepping stone for both plants and animals. Nyah.

1/19/2009 3:16:48 AM



A scientific inquiry or theory that has been developed must be accepted by others. They must have FAITH in that theory so they can BELIEVE it is true.

LOL WUT?

They prescribe to scientific theories that have been developed by humans. This clearly does defeat the purpose of free thinking

LOL WUT?

"By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?

... reality?

1/19/2009 3:28:06 AM

Porky Pine

"Atheism has major flaws; I will only outline three in this short but brief blog post. "

Redundancy is redundant.

1/19/2009 3:41:25 AM

fundiesRtehlulz

What a shitload of fail this is.

1/19/2009 5:11:36 AM



Anyone with half a brain knows that eggs existed long before chickens came out of them.

Just sayin.

1/19/2009 5:20:57 AM

werewolf

You don't understand science and how it works, do you?

Science questions even its most basic tenets constantly and vigorously. If some biologist can prove that the Theory of Evolution was wrong, he's be the next Nobel Prize winner and his name would be up there with Newton and Einstein.

Can you say the same for your religion?

1/19/2009 5:21:48 AM

Knotilus

You fail at understanding science.

1/19/2009 6:36:49 AM

aaa

Sigh...

1/19/2009 6:59:02 AM

epsilon

"short but brief"

And, you fail.

1/19/2009 9:11:15 AM

Pule Thamex

That's right atheists believe in no gods. Should we? You can believe what you wish and so can I. Whoopee! It's easy isn't it?

Atheists are not particularly dogmatic on what happens when we die. Of course, we don't know what happens, and neither do you, but in all probability we'll just cease to exist. Then we'll still never know. Bummer! Atheists like to know things.

Similarly, no one knows how the universe started, but the current scientific theories seem to be heading in the right direction and offer some hope of finding out. But nobody can definitively say, including you.

Flaws. Fun with flaws. Should I point out the absolute welter of flaws with religion? No. Let's look at the flaws that you claim exist with atheism.

Science does not take things on faith. Science requires repeatable experimentation and reasonable evidence. There's no faith involved at all, but if anyone wants to dispute a theory then the way is open for them to do so. I wouldn't have thought that was difficult to comprehend. It's entirely feasible that new research and new discoveries could lead to the supplanting or modifying of older theories.

Atheists claim to be free thinkers. In as much as we don't dogmatically follow a sole source of information contained in one textual reference, then we are free thinkers. In other words, we are not constrained or obliged to look just in one place for information. We can think for ourselves.

Your babbling a bit in the third flaw. But what I think you mean is what gives science the right to claim its method is correct. The answer is that nothing gives science that right. For instance, if you believe the science of aeronautics is wrong, then you are quite within your right to refuse to fly in an aircraft and you are quite within your right to critically examine aeronautics.

There's nothing stopping you from critically examining any scientific endeavour. However, I should point out, since you want to rely solely on the bible, that the scientific method is the most powerful tool for finding out about things.

Your final few sentences have dissolved in to pure shenanigans and the type of mirroring we've come to expect from Christian apologists.

Love ya, Pule.

1/19/2009 10:53:37 AM

David B.

"The First Flaw

In my opinion, atheism already contradicts itself for not believing in faith. They believe that science does not rely on faith. Completely wrong...Science does rely on faith. A scientific inquiry or theory that has been developed must be accepted by others. They must have FAITH in that theory so they can BELIEVE it is true. Example, for hundreds of years scientists declared that damage to the spinal cord is irreversible...FALSE! The spinal cord does regenerate, but at a much slower pace than any other part in the body."


Scientists do not take the claims of others on faith, but on the evidence. Nor do they take other people's evidence on faith, but require disclosure of the methods and materials used so that they can themselves replicate the findings.

While scientists may individually believe some things, such as the irreversibility of spinal injuries, they do not make such beliefs unchallengeable. It is believed on the current evidence, and is subject to revision in the light of new evidence. This is why it was even possible to develop treatments to restore function to damaged spines; because any "received wisdom" is always a tentative conclusion, regardless of evidence, and open to further investigation and revision.

Contrast this with religious dogma.

"The Second Flaw

Atheists claim to be "free thinkers" when evidently they're not. They prescribe to scientific theories that have been developed by humans. This clearly does defeat the purpose of free thinking because in effect they only are listening to one source (science in this case). Me as a Christian I look at one source the bible, but I take it as a whole and find the deeper meaning to the words. Not just like "So the chicken came before the egg gotcha" (atheist perspective) vs. "So Why did the chicken come first" (Christian/religious perspective)."


There is no other proven source of thought except humans, so of course scientists are going to use human developed ideas. Any idea is permissible in science - including ghosts, demons, psychics, aliens and angels - as long as it is provable. Having an idea you can't prove is pointless as you can never then obtain the evidence needed to convince other scientists, who (as explained above) will not simply take your word for it.

That's not to say that science doesn't have it's fair share of speculative hypotheses, it does. It helpfully highlights this fact by referring to them as "speculation", "hypotheses" or "speculative hypotheses".

Oh, and the chicken did not come before the egg.

Contrast this with biblical literalism.

"The Third Flaw

How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"? The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? Does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself."


Short answer: Science works. Faith does not.

Science is a way of discarding ideas that do not conform with reality. For an idea to be accepted by science it must simultaneously explain all the known facts and be contradicted by none of them. This means that at the very least the results of the scientific method work for all known cases.

The idea of "truth" in science is "confirmation". New results confirm or refute current theories, and no amount of evidence ever demonstrates that something is "true" in the absolute sense. Knowing the absolute truth of anything in the real world is impossible, which is why the people who routinely claim to know the absolute truth are also the people who demand you take their "knowledge" on faith.

It is axiomatic to science that there exists an external reality that is amenable to study and which operates by a system of well defined and comprehensible principles. This is because the purpose of science is to study that reality and determine those principles; so if this were not so science would be unable to operate. But even this "axiom" can be contested, if you have the evidence.

Science not only works, but its methods of combating self-delusion, corruption, fraud, conscious and unconscious bias, and multiple - often confounding - effects can be successfully applied to other fields, so that what is real can be distinguished from what has been merely imagined.

Hence on the basis of all the available evidence; intercessionary prayer isn't, faith healing doesn't, creation science isn't, and biblical history wasn't.

Contrast this with apologetics.

"Atheism serves no goal in one's life except Surviving. This goal is one that not even I can comprehend for if your only goal would be for surviving the truly you should look deeper into what life truly means"

Atheism isn't synonymous with science, and most scientists are not atheists. Being an atheist probably contributes little to a person's survival unless it also leads them to reject some religious explanation and/or solution to a medical or psychological problem and seek professional, evidence-based help.

Atheists do not uniformly reject the supernatural, the existence of anything beyond the empirical, the transcendent, or an external meaning to life. Though what is probably true of most atheists is that they can determine for themselves what is important, what goal they want their life to have, what standards they wish to both reach and teach.

Contrast this with biblical standards of morality and freedom.

1/19/2009 11:37:47 AM

Navelgazer

Fail, no surprise.

Next time use a dictionary or encyclopedia BEFORE you make you case! Look up such things as atheist, scientific method & dumbass!

1/19/2009 12:15:23 PM

a mind far far away

I know someone who needs to get hit by a fast moving train.

1/19/2009 12:40:57 PM

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

I will only outline three in this short but brief blog post.

Now compare with intentionally lulzy Shakespeare:

'A tedious brief scene of young Pyramus
And his love Thisbe; very tragical mirth.'
Merry and tragical! tedious and brief!
That is, hot ice and wondrous strange snow.

-Theseus, Midsummer Night's Dream

1/19/2009 6:15:16 PM



I already ripped up this original post, my friend, i won't do it to you again

1/19/2009 8:07:47 PM

El Guapo

Science as a metaphysical system DOES require faith...however, its not faith in the conjectures that it tests, but faith (or maybe operational assumption is a better phrase) that the world is real and that one can learn about it.


1/19/2009 8:16:00 PM

Random Man

"Not just like "So the chicken came before the egg gotcha" (atheist perspective) vs. "So Why did the chicken come first" (Christian/religious perspective)."

The egg came first and here's WHY, the egg is not exclusive to chickens. Reptile eggs were around long before chickens.

1/22/2009 6:53:35 AM

Canadiest

A lot of Atheiests could give a shit about science. I didn't believe in God long before I became interested in science and I still don't have to KNOW how everything began.
Knowledge is a hobby to me, What I know about the solar system, the Universe, Evolution or the Bible effects my daily life in no way. With the help of the internet I have a lot of entertainment checking out various things, this site for example has led me to many amazing sites and given me a lot of laughs
But I don't have any urge to pray to it

1/22/2009 2:29:54 PM

JohnTheAtheist

@werewolf

Not only would someone that proved evolution wrong get the nobel prize, but given proper evidence, those of us who understand and support evolution would abandon it in a second in favor of this new, better theory. I have no allegiance to evolution other then I think it's right. The problem with religion is that no one can ever make that leap because the belief system is not based on logic to begin with.

As far as this stupid ass post is concerned, you are wrong in everything you say. Science does NOT require faith, it requires brains and understanding. I may accept certain tenants put forth by scientists without investigation but I also know that if I had the time or incliniation I could investigate every claim made and make a personal conclusion about its' logical validity. In fact, scientists are doing that all the time to each other. The scientific community is quite ruthless, any theory that survives the process has merit.

Perhaps stem cell research could help the spinal cord injuries but oh noes, da little babies...

Also, you are a complete douchebag.

1/22/2009 3:05:30 PM

1 2 | top: comments page