Atheism is stupid

If one were to listen to the media, science and religion cannot go hand in hand. Science inevitably proves God cannot exist. Darwin and his crowd showed how life evolved from a simple organism into a complex series of rational animals which were able to organize themselves and think beyond anything else in the universe. But atheist’s and their elite allies have it all backwards: Science does not refute God, it proves God. Atheism is the stupid, unthinking and illogical way. God is logical, thinking, and makes sense. Let’s prove it.

The foundation of all life is contained in microscopic detailed instructions that thinking individuals can act on logically. DNA and/or RNA are these specific instructions upon which all information for a life form is based upon. In order to think logically a problem must first be presented:

I give you a one celled organism. First, I want you to assemble the ribosomes so that they can properly interpret the DNA. Now make the amino acids (CH2 for the laymen which is a part of the carboxyl group COOH). Seriously, go get the material. Devise a means by which these ribosomes and amino acids only act at a specified time without error to create an organism. (No not a human, just a simple organism). Now make sure that the cells can properly replicate themselves without fail and sustain themselves. Then watch it develop into a human.

“Ok so where is the dilemma” you ask. Here. I want you to do this, without intelligent thought at any point. You see something go wrong, you can’t interfere. Whether that means hiring a monkey to randomly type at the keyboard for billions of years. Do not enter a goal for the computer. Phrases like “create life” or “make a living organism” are forbidden. Simply set it up, press start and watch.

Wait! But this experiment will not work. There is no way that these organisms randomly developed on accident. I know. Sorry, find a way around it. Have you solved the problem that has taken mankind centuries to even touch upon? Ok, now subject your experiment to climate and other “x” factors and see what happens then.

Didn’t work? Thanks for helping to prove the existence of god. Oh, it did work? Thanks for helping prove the existence of God. You did help to change the code into a readable form. That required intelligent thought.

You see, atheism is actually stupid when it is thought out logically. The foundational problems inherit in creating any simple organism that it is simply impossible that a random accident caused it. Atheism is an untenable and stupid position because it says precisely that: it was all just a random accident.

Genius scientists such as Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton all believed in the existence of God. (For the laymen out their, Einstein invented the theory of relativity and Sir Isaac Newton invented physics and Calculus (Yes an entire complex form of mathematics’ barely even touched upon until college: and even then only pathetically.) Atheists like to gloss over this fact. They also like to claim that religions are fanatical because they refuse to accept evolution into their teaching. This is a complete lie. The Catholic Church (along with many others) say that evolution is completely kosher with its teachings. No, atheism is fanatical because it simply refuses to recognize an inherit problem in science and since it cannot prove it, it refuses to use logic to explain it. They have not a single shred of evidence to prove their case.

The idea that scientists in general reject God because they are “smart” is the most absurd and indefensible argument ever heard. Sure there were some. But they didn’t think hard enough. For all the great things Darwin did, he was never a philosopher. He asked the question once (paraphrased) that some people are so dull as to think that everything was not created by a random accident, because to think such a thing is illogical. EXACTLY. Sir. Thomas Aquinas noted this almost centuries before Darwin, and said precisely, “it is illogical to think such a thing.”

If the earth was one degree more off its axis, we would have no seasons. If there were no Himalayan mountains, there could be no agriculture. If we were just a bit more close to the sun, life would be untenable. If there was a bit more nitrogen in the air, say bye bye. To believe that all of this was a random accident is an absurd blind leap of faith because it has no basis in fact, thought, or reasoning. It is more than fanatical belief.

What is even scarier is that these are the smart atheists. God help the dumb ones. Atheists try and claim the high ground when they have no basis to do such a thing. They rant about how they are being mistreated when they have to listen to “under god” during prayer when they haven’t even begun to think about whether or not He exists.

What are we hear for if not a purpose? Is everything simply a random accident? Fine, then I am stealing your 100 dollars. Why? Because I can and if I am smart enough, I can get away without any punishment. Hitler sure got away with a lot. How fair is it that in the end we both end up in the same way: as dust. Scary isn’t it. But this is the belief system of the atheists.

Atheism is an untenable and fanatical position. Many atheists are so blind they are blinded as to what they are blinded about. The next time you come across an atheist do two things, one ask him to use his brain a little more. Two, pray for him. Pray not because he doesn’t have a religion, but pray because his has one.

If the earth was one degree more off its axis, we would have no seasons. If there were no Himalayan mountains, there would be no agriculture. If we were just a bit more close to the sun, life would be untenable. If there was a bit more nitrogen in the air, say bye bye.

But he left out the most impressive proof of all -- 99+% of the billions of people on the face of the earth have legs exactly long enough to reach the floor, not a millimeter more or less! Obviously this shows the Hand of God at work!

Sigh...here we go again. "Atheism is stupid." Very astute. Medved, your excrutiating lack of any scientific knowledge or basis in your quirky little "article" calls to mind the kid in college who can write on and on and on about NOTHING. Previous posters have pointed out the inaccuracies, so I will spare everyone. (As for the Himalaya/N items, I think they're the next wave of creationist drivel, ie. state something that is so big, unverifiable, and unimagined. There will be no "evidence" to "prove" it wrong, so therefore we'll get away with it for a while.
I think the group of Freeper Non-theists/atheists/agnostics kinda show there is really NO connection b/w Liberalism/socialism and rational thought...oops, I mean freethought...oops, I mean lack of belief in the supernatural.
Read, Absorb, and THINK about this: You (Christians) and I are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do.
have a lovely day.

if you do not want to accept my essay read blind atheism. Atheism doesnt have a founding in fact or reason or logic. They simply cannot prove the existence of God so they deny his existence even though there is no proof to back them up. Agnosticism is actually a much more tenable position because they say, "we can prove it 100%, so we can't take a position either way."

Belief in God is based on the idea that all these complex things: science, humanity, the universe, and all that is wonderful woudld be impossible without something working behind it that was smarter. It doesnt claim there was a jesus, or a mohammad, or even what God looks like. All it is saying is that something, somewhere, is doing something to make it work right.

"Perhaps if you could offer some properties of this "God" I might better recognize its existence."

I'd like to take a shot at that, if I may.

I would direct you to start by looking at yourself. Not merely at the surface you, the analytical rational you, but at the deepest you. The you that has existed since your earliest memories of being you. The you that is distinct from every other thing and yet connected to every other thing.

This can be harder than it sounds. It takes a great deal of courage.

Many people only look that deep when they've reached some personal crisis; others when they are terrified for their lives. It is at that core, at the essential you, that you will find God, at least that's where the rest of us have found Him.

He has all ways been there, and you have all ways known Him.

You know something else an atheist's gonna believe in??

As has been pointed out more than once, there are other equally strong theories of speciation as evolution (e.g. some interesting quasi-Lamarckian stuff that comes out of complexity theory regarding genetic machinery). However, since the droolers fixate on evolution, that's the only one that ever gets discussed. Don't project your lack of imagination on the rest of the world.

My latest anti evolution contention is that there is not enough information in DNA, 750 mbytes, to build a man. That DNA is suppose to control the cell as a cell and all of it's very complex processes, but it is also suppose to be able to organice a trillion cells of thousands of different types into a man. Right. "Data Compression" is the cry of the evolutionist. These people don't realize that only certain kinds of data can be compressed. You can compress a simple picture but you can't compress tightly written assembly language.

Picture that fertalized egg splitting. One cell has to have a particular assignment and the other had a different assignment. This is true for each split untill you have a multi trillion celled person.

It is obvious that God forms the man just as He said He does.

I know, but even the simple organism, the most simple thing known in the universe is so incredibly complex that something had to start it out. Explain to me otherwise? explain how all the random accidents led us to hear right now talking. It is impossible.

Was it you who said that mathmatics and evolution are contradictory? I am not sure.

Evolution, the development of single celled organisms into complex forms of life does not go against the idea of a God. For me, it makes it even more believable

Belief in God is based on the idea that all these complex things: science, humanity, the universe, and all that is wonderful woudld be impossible without something working behind it that was smarter.

That's dumb. If God is so smart, what's his IQ?. If I was smarter, would I be more God-like?

Physicist is danged smart, does that mean he's closer to God?

Urgh...

Here is my problem with theism. Given the nature and intricacies of the universe I cannot claim to know how it all works or how it all originated. I cannot even claim that I or anyone else will likely have those answers. My answer to what ultimately makes the universe works or what made it exist or why it exists at all is "I don't know."

Given this lack of knowledge, however, I am not about to jump to the conclusion that some "intelligent" entity is behind it all. While I have no alternate explanations, the lack of alternate explantion is not evidence for a "god" explanation. I require affirmitive evidence for a proposition, not lack of evidence for a contradictory viewpoint. Now, if you can come up with evidence that it is completely impossible for this universe to exist without an intelligent entity behind it, then you might be going somewhere because evidence refuting one half of a dilemma does amount to evidence in favour of the other half. To date I have seen nothing apart from "I cannot conceive of how this could have happened otherwise": argument from incredulity.

In other words, for me to bother with considering a god's existence, I need evidence in for this god -- not lack of evidence for alternative explanations.

Of course, once you have demonstrated the existence of some generic intelligent entity called "god", I'm not sure where you would want me to go from there. Establishing that the universe was created by some intelligent entity offers nothing except that this entity is intelligent and that it can create life-sustaining universdes. It says nothing of this entity's nature, motives, relative sentience or even whether this entity is still around or if it buggered off after setting everything in motion and possibly died of old age.

I am attempting to paraphrase Fr. O'Malleys postulate on it. I am not a scientist (although I have taken many courses in it. If I say something that sounds stupid it is because I am not saying it right. But I think even with the earths axis, you see my point. Isn't it rather amazing that it all works out?

Forgive me, I just had my wisdom teeth out 4 hours ago and the anesthesia is still driving me crazy. lol

I am enjoying the discussion

Matt

First start by finding all that isn't worthy of worship, in what remains, you'll have an answer.

That depends on the definition of "worthy of worship". I personally define it as an empty set, though I would be curious to hear other definitions (I haven't spent much time thinking about this particular bit).

And that makes you a little more 'certain' that God exists?

If someone disproves that, will your belief lessen? If not, what good is such a silly assertion?

And that makes you a little more 'certain' that God exists?

If someone disproves that, will your belief lessen? If not, what good is such a silly assertion?

No I'm already 100 percent certain He exists. It gives me a little more proof for the non-believer to consider. It is only to help edify those of less faith and as a point of discussion for the unsaved.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.