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.

The agnostic merely takes it on faith that there is no way to determine if God exists or not, since he admits that he cannot know. Agnosticism is faith-based and mealy-mouthed.

It depends on whether or not you are talking about so-called "weak agnosticism" or "strong agnosticism". Weak agnosticism is logically equivalent to atheism, the only difference being that the atheist has the fortitude to accept the logical conclusion of their ideas. Strong agnosticism is something else altogether, and while most agnostics do not espouse this variant, one could make a very sound case that this is actually the most correct position of all.

I personally don't label myself anything, as I am "non-religious" in the blandest sense of the word. I don't bother thinking about it any more, though I enjoy engaging in the meta-arguments.

Combined, they are STILL in the vast MINORITY and isn't the United States of America supposed to be about MAJORITY RULE?

Nope. Our government was specifically designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."

What is wrong with accepting unsupported assertions

I'll tell you as soon as you pay me the $1000 that you owe me.

Hahaha, good one! I accept that that assertion exists and it is unsupported. The answer is 'no'.

I don't think it "wrong" so much as difficult or impossible.

I agree completely. But notice, that at this point we have departed from 'right' and 'wrong'... That's interesting, huh?

How can I have belief in a concept when I don't even have an awareness of the existence of that concept?

Well, the important part is not to worry whether it does exist or not.

"I heard an analogy once that DNA constructed by accident would be like a tornado hitting an aircraft spare parts factory and blowing together a fully functioning 747! I sure atheists have a perfectly logical explanation for this."
Um...how about the fact that life is alive and capable of adaptations whereas your juvenile tornado/mechanical parts example involves wholly inanimate objects. Try harder next time.

read Fr O'Malleys "Meeting a living God". They are there. The comments were written as an added paragraph. If it is 4% instead of 1% woops. But it still does not disprove my point

Er, 4% instead of 1% of what? I commented on four claims, finding that two were either completely wrong or terribly worded and reporting that I could find absolutely no information on the other two.

The "if the earth were one foot closer or futher..." claim is an old and very often debunked claim, demonstrating incredible ignornace of the earth's orbit around the sun. The axial tilt claim is only slightly more grounded in reality (a significant change in axial tilt would impact the seasons or eliminate them altogether) but claiming that the earth's tilt is fixed is false. Pointing out your errors does not falsify your entire essay, but they do debunk some of the claims you use to support your position.

I'm just not smart enough to figure out God, the Universe and Everything, and I don't think that ANY religion out there has figured it out either.

Hey don't feel bad, no one has ever been able to figure this out. That's why God has always told us what he wants from us and out of us. Any religion that says it has it FIGURED out is feeling a bit big for it's britches. But if that religion makes a good case for God telling us what he wants, you might give them a listen.

I saw something else in your response. Nitrogen gas exits in small amounts in the earths atmosphere. If it increases ever so slightly (When I say ever so slightly, to a scientist it would be huge, but for the laymen it would seem miniscule. 20% tp 22.5% seems small but is actually pretty impossible to do.

In regards to the sun comment, I should have been more clear. The axis upon which are on, is truly a miracle. If it were any different, there would be no life. I did not mean to suggest that if the sun was 9 miles closer life would be wiped out. I was not clear on that sentence (It was added late at night and was not properly revised). But my facts are not made up, again Fr. O'Malleys "Meeting the Living God." He discusses many of these things and would be the one to give you the actual sources.

I heard an analogy once that DNA constructed by accident would be like a tornado hitting an aircraft spare parts factory and blowing together a fully functioning 747!

While I may or may not be an atheist (it depends on who you ask), the obvious problem with your analogy is that it is a false analogy. The construction of a fully functioning 747 is not even vaguely analogous to chemical synthesis. Using the convergence of the results to demonstrate the analogousness of the process is a well-described logical fallacy.

The article is not trying to say that this proves the existence of God. Rather, it makes it extremely probable beacuse the flip side, atheism, is practically impossible. Again, I am not claiming agnostic's are bad people. I have nothing against them. It is the atheists who are fanatical

Does foolishness not lie in that same realm? ;^)

You say that like it's a bad thing....LOL!

I'd rather not have a foolish mind, but beyond that, it's fun having a foolish stomach. It growls at me for no reason, wants all kinds of stuff in it and occasionally feels like it's jumping up and down when I'm on a rollercoaster.

Your suggestion that someone must believe in the existence of "xwert", in order for the string "xwert" to have meaning is not correct.

I should have worded this better. Someone must have an idea of the concept of a "xwert" for the string to have meaning, though they wouldn't necessarily need to believe that it exists as anything more than a concept.

Nitrogen gas exits in small amounts in the earths atmosphere.

I sure hope you weren't trying to say "exists", because the Earth's atmosphere is 80% nitrogen.

Um...how about the fact that life is alive and capable of adaptations whereas your juvenile tornado/mechanical parts example involves wholly inanimate objects.

You said a mouthful there. Do you realize it?

What is wrong with accepting unsupported assertions?

I'll tell you as soon as you pay me the $1000 that you owe me.

This killed me! I had to explain to a co-worker why I was laughing over my keyboard... : )

Do the words good and god come from the same root?

No. You could have looked this up yourself, but the term "god" is derived from an old root meaning "to call upon" or "to implore". It has no relation to "good".

*YAWN* Another attempt to equate "pure random chance" (the straw man) with "chance events constrained by the laws of nature" (the reality).

Don't these people have any new arguments?

But you do stop looking, right?

Why? Maybe it's a nice night and it was fun walking around. You can still keep looking, it's just a lot more fun now that you no longer have anything to look for!

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.