Thursday, November 26, 2009

Atheist Fallacies

So many are the irrational beliefs to which atheists hold, that it’s easy to forget that these people see themselves as the rational beings on this planet, to the exclusion of anyone who believes that there is more to life that what meets the eye. To highlight the extent of this dream-like state in which atheists live, let me give this example.

An atheist blogger recently wrote, “Statistically, given the conditions, experts have means of demonstrating that it's no real surprise that life came about. Given the truth of natural selection, it is also more than plausible that intelligent life-forms would evolve.”

Did you hear that? Did you hear the words that were used in those sentences?
“Statistically” “Means of demonstrating” “No real surprise that life came about”

Those who understand probabilities may raise an eyebrow at that last one. Is this guy the exception? Are atheists who depend on misinformation to maintain their belief system, who rehearse incomprehensible “facts,” who cling to what truly amounts to blind faith, are these people the exception or the rule? Well, it certainly isn’t difficult to find atheists, very well known atheists, who make statements that make the same type of claim.

Take for example, biologist Franklin Harold “Life arose here on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process.”

Really? Do you think that Mr. Harold has considered how improbable something like that happening might be? Do you think that he actually has any evidence to back up that amazing statement?

“This is not a statement of demonstrable fact,” he continues, “but an assumption.”

It's not a demonstrable fact? But atheist #1 at the beginning of this post just told us, "Experts have means of demonstrating that it's no real surprise . . ." Obviously someone thinks it's demonstrable. I suppose I could guess that this blogger isn’t a scientist and is just guessing that there are ways of demonstrating how non life turned into life. Yet Richard Dawkins is a scientist, a very well known scientist and he makes the exact same claim, ‘Inanimate and inorganic gases evolved . . .’ In fact, the blogger probably got the idea from one of Dawkins’ books. Scientists, as we’ve been told, have means to demonstrate this. Surely statements like these are based on verifiable, repeatable, observable studies. Of course they are. I read one atheist who proclaimed that "theories are the same as facts."

And Richard Dawkins says, “As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.” According to Richard Dawkins, it’s Christians who are guilty of doing this and it makes him furious. Surely he wouldn’t be guilty of the very same error. Surely Mr. Harold wouldn’t be guilty of the very same error. Well, maybe he is. What he means is, his statement is supported by a desperate need to have it be true to maintain an anti-God belief system.

Hebrews 11:1 states, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.” Interesting. When Harold has less than complete evidence, it’s called a scientific certainty. When Christians have less than complete evidence, it’s called blind faith. What's more, those kinds of statements don’t just apply to the beginnings of life. Even in explaining how the “I” functions, and how we have reason and a consciousness, it’s easy to find statements like this.

“Our starting assumption as scientists ought to be that on some level, consciousness has to be an illusion.”

Maybe you should read that again. “Our STARTING ASSUMPTION as scientists ought to be that on some level consciousness has to be an illusion.”

Harold, and other atheist scientists may nod and walk away, feeling pleased with themselves. However anyone using their mind has to be taken aback with the fact that these people think that this OUGHT to be their Starting Assumption. Why ought that to be the case? Well, because it fits the hypothesis - not the evidence mind you, just the hypothesis that human beings are nothing more than a mass of firing neurons and biochemical exchanges. Naturalism and materialism can allow for nothing else. To atheists, the soul, or the “I” does not and cannot exist. To atheists, you are nothing but an accident of nature; simple chance.

Let’s take a look at a statistical means of demonstrating the chances of protons having the right mass, electrons having the perfect charge, the correct gravitational constant etc. etc. all by accident. Stephen Hawking concurs that “impossible” is hardly too strong a word. In explaining the infinitesimal confines of the cosmological constant he states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re collapsed before it even reached its present size.”

When God is not allowed into the equation, there really isn’t any premise too improbable, a hypothesis too lacking in evidential support because, well, an accident is all we could possibly be. As Cognitive Scientist Steven Pinker explains, “Because there are no alternatives [to naturalism] we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet.” (Italics mine). Richard Dawkins writes, “However improbable the origin of life might be, it must have happened this way because we are here.” Talk about faith!!

10 comments:

tinkbell13 said...

Hmmm.... For a posting about atheist fallacies, you should perhaps look at what you have written.

o·ver·sim·pli·fy (vr-smpl-f)
v. o·ver·sim·pli·fied, o·ver·sim·pli·fy·ing, o·ver·sim·pli·fies
v.tr.
To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error.
v.intr.
To cause distortion or error by extreme simplification of a subject.

You wrote-
An atheist blogger recently wrote, “Statistically, given the conditions, experts have means of demonstrating that it's no real surprise that life came about. Given the truth of natural selection, it is also more than plausible that intelligent life-forms would evolve.”

Clearly, you do not understand natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

What part of this do you not understand? Your cut and paste arguments lack one essential quality- credibility.

Chris Mackey said...

Quote mining, argument from ignornace, strawman and incorrectly attributing someone else's quote to Stephen Hawking.

Gorth Satana said...

"incorrectly attributing someone else's quote to Stephen Hawking."

I pointed that out to him a while ago.

Makarios said...

TB: You use an atheist quote and then say that I don't understand natural selection?
==============

Makarios said...

Lee Smolin attributes that quote to Hawking in "The Life of the Cosmos," and Hawking himself wrote it in "A Brief History of Time" (New York: Bantam Books, 1996, page 126)

Gorth Satana said...

Stephen Hawking concurs that “impossible

Thanks. We were talking about this quote.

Chris Mackey said...

Stephen Hawking concurs that “impossible” is hardly too strong a word.

Not that quote, THIS quote.

Makarios said...

"Impossible" is my word based on his comment, "one part in a hundred thousand million million"

tinkbell13 said...

Yes, I did, and clearly you do not.

Makarios said...

TB: Are you talking to me? And if so, what are you talking about?