Posted on 06/27/2002 9:54:14 PM PDT by Festa
Atheism is stupid---and has no foundation in science
"The only atheism is the denial of truth." Arthur Lynch
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.”
It is.
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.
Actually, America is about rights. The rights of individuals. The government exists to secure those rights. It is only on legitimate matters of government that majority rules. In areas where the government has no business, the majority can go pound sand.
Maybe he/she just finally got tired of being told he/she was "stupid," by supernaturalists.
Actually, religious folk also admit there's no way to determine if God exists, hence faith, something believed. Much of life is faith based. In plane geometry, a postulate is a statement accepted as true. Postulates are not proven, nor can they be proven. You either believe them, or you don't, or you have no opinion. But, if you don't accept them, you can't enter the realm or plane geometry.
laredo4: Actually, America is about rights. The rights of individuals. The government exists to secure those rights. It is only on legitimate matters of government that majority rules. In areas where the government has no business, the majority can go pound sand.
"Majority rule" is more descriptive of dictatorships than of the US. The idea here is that nobody rules. That's the result of individual rights. The only function of the majority is that they get to select the governement. But the government doesn't rule us; it's supposed to keep us free. (At least that was the original idea.)
buddhists should be left out of your worship meeting as they don't worship a deity. There is none in their religion. It wouldn't even be properly classified as a religion if they didn't believe is the supernatural, to wit: reincarnation of souls.
The big lie/HATE...fraud-hoax-FREEZE---
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade/WAR--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY against God--man--society!!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...
the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning---NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION/ATHEISM is a Hate CRIME
ps...Atheism/evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism---State secular MONOPOLY religion forbidding the freedom of speech/religion of everything except atheism!
Actually, yes.
In a plane, given a line and a point not on the line, there is one and only one line through the point parallel to the given line.
This postulate seemed so obvious, most thought it could be proved from the other postulates, i.e., made a theorem. However the proof was not forthcoming. In the process of attempting a proof, Reimann (I think) suggested that, if the statement was not true, either no line existed or many lines existed. Following these threads, the fields of hyperbolic and elliptic geometry were discovered. Both have real world applications.
It's been a long time since high school and I'm a little hazy on some of the details. If anyone can clarify, please be gentle.
Why bring me into this? What've I ever done to you?
Was there myself for many years. The existence of an orderly and sublime universe (Why is there something and not nothing?) together with a numinous experience or two led me to conclude that the universe is God-infused and that science's success has been a function of God's dependability. But I don't get "points" for converting anyone -- you will learn and know and be satisfied in accord with your need and capacity. My recommendation would be to trust yourself and your life experiences and not what someone else says about them. But you didn't ask for my recommendation. If you run across pariah's stuff on these and similar threads, you may find it illuminating. It is certainly deep.
Actually, many mathematicians have, and sometimes if you invalidate a postulate it leads you down a whole road to new mathmatics, such as non-euclidian geometry. It turns out that if you invalidate Euclid's fifth(or was it fourth?) postulate that any two points determine only one line, and make the postulate read that two points detemine an infinite number of lines, you get a whole new field of gemetry leading to solutions to formerly insoluble problems. It also turns out that some of the resulting equations turn up in such unlikely places as quantum phsyics and fluid dynamics.
So the real thought here is that by limiting yourself to a set of postulates that are inviolable, you are cutting yourself off from learning things by eliminating them as possibilities. Of coures, in the real world, you have to impose some limits or you'd never accomplish anything. If Euclid had not made his postulates, we'd never even have had Euclidian geometry, let alone non-Euclidian.
To tie this back to our discussion on Athiesm vs Zealotry, It seems to me that they are just two sides of the same coin with different postulates. One side believes G-d must exist, and the other believes G-d must not exist. Based on these postulates, they get completely different world views. Now, the million dollar question is if either of them are really more "right" than the other or are they just different view based on different starting points, both equally valid based on the starting postulate?
Further, you have to add the complication that every individual has his own set of postulates about the world, so everyone to some degree is a zealot or an atheist about any point you want to raise, thus is spectrum of humanity. Now add in the complicating factor of everyone trying to convince others that his postulates are correct and you have the world--people willing to give in on points that aren't important to them because they will not affect their world view--and people who are inflexible on a postulate because to admit it's truth or falisity would mean that their whole world view would have to be revised--few people will allow this to happen because it means that everything they have ever believed in might again be suspect, because the supporting postulate has been destroyed.
On the other hand, some people believe in weird things. Should we not try to convince them of the folly of their postulates? It's a difficult question, isn't it? What's weird to you might not be wierd to others, and maybe it's only wierd because your postulates are completely incompatible with the other person's. But, if a postulate is demonstrably false, you can try to convince someone to change their belief in it. But what if the postulate is unprovable either way? Then you get into arguments about beliefs, and everyone is correct, based on their own beliefs. No side is stupider than another when it comes to unprovable beliefs, since they are both completely unprovable.
This is getting really long, so I'll wrap up this way. People have different beliefs. Some are provably wrong, others are not. Our job as a society is to make all the various postulates get along with each other so everyone can be as happy and free as possible, so we can all share the quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's true but this has nothing to do with a belief or a lack of belief in God. There are so many things I can think of that can be neither proven nor disproven (like the Invisible Pink Unicorn). However I'm sure that most people lack a belief in the IPU and many will even say that it does not exist despite the fact that it's existence can not be disproven.
So in the end having no opinion on the matter amounts to the same as lacking a belief in this entity. Therefore an atheist is simply a person who lacks a belief (for whatever reasons) in some sort of deity and it's not necessary for him to state that this deity (or all deities) don't exist.
to Dimensio: Thought I ping you to this bizarre article. Heh, so much on why my irony-meter went broke ;-D
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.