Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[bwinwright]

I once heard Neal Boortz, the Atlanta based radio talk show geek say, "Atheism is absolutely false. Anyone trying to sell atheism is simply insane."

Now, I agree that organized religion has proven itself to be so ugly and destructive for so long, I can thoroughly understand why one would resort to calling them self an atheist rather than having anyone suspect them of being a part of some religion. I get it!

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right? Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?
The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

 

[Hokulele]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

(Bolding mine.) Entropy always increases.

 

[bwinwright]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

You almost get it here...

Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

But then you lose it again.

 

[paximperium]

Yawn...a pseudo philosopher at work...

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason. I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

Sure you have, so why is your entire essay one big strawman?

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists.

What a nice and completely useless definition but whatever makes you happy.

Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

No.

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right? Now, as far as being all-knowing or omniscient, hell, that's a question of faith or speculation, right?

No. Nice blatant Non-sequitur. You make a useless definition of "god" and them jump to giving this useless "all universe" some characteristic that can never be proven. Nice philosophical juggling.

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Wow, what a nice bit of Creationism/ID apolegetic Straw man and Argument from Incredulity you have there. "bwinwight doesn't get it therefore it cannot be true"

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

False.

The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

False again. Crystals, planets, stars and even ice are examples of organizing order that does not require intelligence. You need to read up on more current ID apolegetics, yours is rather lame and outdated.

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." But, of course, this is also erroneous because that F-22 can't have sex with another F-22 and produce a baby F-22, can it?

Yup...oh you didn't some relevant comeback?

[/quote]
Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made? [/quote]
Still irrelevant. You mean, how scientists keep changing how long a year actually is every few years? Yeah, precise. Pssst..why don't you look up what arbitrary system we use to keep time. Keep trying.

Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

Unlikely but not absolutely impossible. More likely the cosmos will end before that happens...what was your point again?

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

You had some point?
ONE BIG FLAW, Mr. amateur philosopher wannabee in your entire argument.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is nothing more than a response to theism. Nothing you have attempted to amateurishly tried to state is even relevant to your claims.

 

[bwinwright]

(Bolding mine.) Entropy always increases.

Hokulele, I don't understand what you mean.

 

[quixotecoyote]

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Billions upon billions of conditional probabilities all building on each other. It had to happen somehow and if it had resulted in some other intelligence, that three eyed monster might make the same observation as you as to how incredibly unlikely he is.

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

Assumes the conclusion.

 

[Piscivore]

I surely don't understand how that comment makes any sense.

If this "organising intelligence" exists it is failing spectacularly at keeping things organised.

 

[Twiler]

Isn't it meaningless to talk about an 'organising intelligence of which everything consists'? If it is everything, what is it organising?

Also, the universe only appears orderly to us, because we are products of the order. The apparent symmetries are the results of universal rules. The movements of astral bodies are determined by physics, not divine geometry.

 

[jj]

Disorder, over the entire universe, is always increasing. The quote out of the OP is, simply put, factually incorrect.

All the rest of the smokescreen arises from a false premise.

Right behind the glass
Is a little blade of grass
Be careful as you pass
Move along, move along!

 

[The Drain]

I've never, ever, heard an athiest or anyone say anything like "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

Most sensible folk that I know are wowed by the abundance and complexity of the natural world - both here on Earth and what we can see of the bigger Universe. I know that I am.

But just because something is complicated or awe-inspiring does not mean that it was deliberately made or designed by an outside agency. Why do you think that "common sense" tells you otherwise?

 

[paximperium]

I've never, ever, heard an athiest or anyone say anything like "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature." Sounds like a strawman argument to me.

Most sensible folk that I know are wowed by the abundance and complexity of the natural world - both here on Earth and what we can see of the bigger Universe. I know that I am.

But just because something is complicated or awe-inspiring does not mean that it was deliberately made or designed by an outside agency. Why do you think that "common sense" tells you otherwise?

The entire post is a strawman and a regurgitation of ID/Creationist Apolegetics.

It is getting boring because it is the same arguments again and again and again and again which never changes despite having these lies dismantled.

 

[bwinwright]

PAXIMpad sure have a lot to say?

Paxim, you sure "seem" to be saying a lot, but nothing seems to make any sense, at all..maybe you're just an illusion..like your atheistic philosophy. You must enjoy your arrogance, pretending to have something of substance to say, but actually saying nothing of SUBSTANCE.

PAXIPAD, why don't you swallow that gigantic ego and try to explain WHY YOU BELIEVE ORDER DOESN'T REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I knew my "arrogance" charge would hit your hot button. This really hurts, doesn't it?

I'm calling you out. Convince me. Tell me why something can come from nothing and order doesn't require intelligent direction.

If you can, you'll be the first in history.

You're like the guy who says to the insurance man, ""I don't need any life insurance because I'm not going to die." Yeah, Mr. smarty-pants. You'll be the first!


I dare you to stop being so cute and make a serious attempt to be wise. You "appear" to be so intelligent, but you don't have the argument to Convince me. You can't, can you?

Teach me please!

It is incivil to edit a username in order to insult. Please refrain from this in the future.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[godless dave]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist. The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

Unified, maybe. Intelligent, no.

 

[Robin]

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist.

Have you ever happened across a little tome called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He spends a good deal of time deriving a definition which he believes is a fair representation of the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

The definition of God is a popular and recurring subject among atheists here.

The most elemental definition of GOD is, in my opinion, an organizing intelligence of which everything consists. Even the majority of the scientific community, involved with quantum, particle, or wave physics, believe that everything is apparently connected, unified, or one, right?

If, in fact, everything is one, then in addition to this omnipresence, this stuff, let's call it God, must also be omnipotent or all-powerful too, right?

Ah yes, the old theist tactic. Redefine God to mean the underlying order of the universe and - hey presto - God exists because order exists.

I would have thought, at a minimum, we would have to be talking about a purposeful intelligence for something that we could meaningfully call God.

The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

Hmm. Are you saying that intelligent direction does not require order?

Of course, atheists will say things like, "Well a F-22 Raptor is far more sophisticated than anything you can find in nature."

Please cite any atheist saying anything remotely like this.

You atheists need to stop the madness, the arrogance gone wild!

Have you ever heard the expression "people in glass houses..."?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Some people just don't want to be taught. Apparently you are one of them.

 

[Robin]

Tell me why something can come from nothing and order doesn't require intelligent direction.

No, you tell us why intelligent direction does not require order.

 

[six7s]

But most folks calling their selves atheists are simply rejecting science and common sense, ignoring fact and reason.

Please cite ONE scientifically-reached 'conclusion' that posits the existence of any god

I have listened to so many atheists attempt to explain why they believe there is no God yet none of them has ever made a reasonable case.

You might have been listening, but you didn't hear

Atheism is the absence of theism; nothing more, nothing less

Of course the definition of God seems to NEVER be addressed by an atheist.

Similarly, aUnicornists and aLeprechaunists are equally silent on the details of their respective non-beliefs

But, for anyone to believe that the millions of examples of life we see, like eagles and oak trees, both being far more sophisticated examples of engineering than anything humans have ever been able to manufacture, just happened to come together as the result of some random accident or luck is "totally insane".

Why?

Common sense should tell you that the sophistication and complexity of any product demands an organizing intelligence capable of manufacturing it, right?

Wrong

The atheist argument that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION is the primary flaw in the philosophy, rendering it false.

Again... wrong

Or, what about the fact that the Earth has been traveling 18.51 miles per "second" on its orbital path around the Sun and doing it for hundreds, maybe millions of years, and makes one complete orbit every 365.2422 days?

Isn't that more durable and precise than any watch or clock man has ever made?

Maybe... so?

Oh, speaking of the PRIMARY FLAW of atheism. Let's say you dis-assemble your ROLEX watch, carefully place all its parts in a paper bag, and then set the bag on a table in an empty room, leave the room, and lock the door.

How long will it take before the ROLEX reassembles itself, without the assistance of any intelligence?

Please, stop arguing from incredulity! Instead, do some research and realise how your ignorance is blinding you from the 'magic' that is reality

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
​

In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up.

These labels I have assigned to the transitional forms have nothing to do with the simulation itself. They are names I assigned so that we could analyze what the population was doing. The clocks are just clocks, living in their world, trying to tell time as accurately as possible.

One thing I wanted to address but didn't have time in the video is how rapid the transitional period can be. In some simulations the population goes from pendulums to 3-handed Clocks in a hundred or so generations. And the transitions between the transitional forms are even more rapid, happening in about ten generations. Chances are none or a very limited representation of that transition will be preserved in the fossil record.

One thing I should add. The program does not draw the clocks. It maintains, mates, and simulates them, but the drawing must be done manually from the genome matrix.

The program is written in MatLab.

The hand rotations that begin with 86 are 86,000 not 86.000. When YouTube compressed the video it becam hard to tell a comma from a period.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9e1zz000mq7

To download the program go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1umdtnwayyp

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

You atheists need to stop the madness

Unfortunately, in real life and on this forum, there is nothing to prevent the promotion of 'madness', as your posts illustrate

the arrogance gone wild!

This is your problem. The solution lies with you

 

[bokonon]

PAXIPAD, why don't you swallow that gigantic ego and try to explain WHY YOU BELIEVE ORDER DOESN'T REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I knew my "arrogance" charge would hit your hot button. This really hurts, doesn't it?

For some people, watching someone like you talking smack from a position of intractable ignorance may be painful, but for me, it's just mildly amusing.

Look, you used the orbit of the earth around the sun as an example of order that requires intelligent direction, so maybe you could defend that position for starters. Do you think God is constantly remembering how strong to make the gravity so the earth doesn't go flying away? Maybe if he gets distracted by all the prayers over hurricane Ike, and "thinks" it a little stronger, we'll start spiraling into the sun tomorrow.

From my perspective, gravity is a force of nature. It's predictable. It doesn't require intelligence. No one has to remember to turn it off in the morning, or dust it twice a year. It just works. If you think God is steering the planets around the solar system, do you think he steered the asteroid that smashed into the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago?

And, for the record, "convincing you" is not a goal. I'd sooner try to explain algebra to a slug.

 

[Robin]

It is a fairly simple argument bwinwright.

Either there is a God or there is not.

If there is not then order does not require intelligent direction.

If there is, then God is an example of order that does not require intelligent direction. Nobody created God and he did not create himself.

Therefore the one thing that we can be most sure about is that order does not require intelligent direction.