?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
20 June 2008 @ 02:09 pm
for stevenxonward - wouldn't fit in the comments...  

Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.” Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain’s leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.”1http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?2http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif
Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldviewhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as sciencehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything! This is stupid, irrational and illogic – but I’m prepared to hear you out.

Here’s why:

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Check. I agree with you there. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Actually, the Law of Non-Contradiction as stated by Aristotle goes something like: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". In other words, two mutually exclusives states cannot exist for something at the same time. The original statement is incorrectly worded, but I’ll read on anyway. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? Right, I’m still with you but I fail to see your point. I am also struggling not to take a burning hot poker to your grammar. The Christian can answer this question. Fabulous, can’t wait. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. WOW HOW LOGICAL! OMGZ THE CROWD APPLAUDS! The laws of logic are a reflection of the way Godhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif thinks. Excuse me, back track a few paces there. Who is this ‘god’ and where is your logical, rational, non-contradicting proof of his existence? What’s that? There is none... So, I guess the rest of this discussion is going to be based on false premise. *sigh* Oh well, fire at will. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. That is so rich, I think I’m going to be ill from gnawing on it. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif), You wouldn’t be quoting a text written by a delusional nobody a thousand odd years ago as proof of the Law of Non-contradiction. That’s a little odd considering the law was written about 436BC ... yeah, that would be before this god existed... and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. I’m still trying to get over the fact that you’ve presupposed your entire argument on a ‘god’ that there is no rational evidence for – which, by the way, is the purpose of the Atheist’s argument for reason.
Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Just assume from now on that every time the word ‘god’ is used, I’m scorning your use of an unjustifiable entity as the basis of this fantasy based discussion. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, Scorn. Scorn. Scorn. Mock. the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. Actually, by definition the LoNC cannot by abstract as it is wholly dependent on the physical world. This object is occupying this position and not another therefore the law holds. If there is no object, there is no need for the law. (By the way, I’m ignoring the fact that LIGHT seems to violate this law and acts as both a particle and a wave simultaneously despite both being mutually exclusive states and thus disproves your entire theory and renders this argument useless.) Also, since when were ‘laws’ entities... Seriously, I don’t want my law of circular momentum striking up a conversation with me. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. It should be noted that some laws only apply under certain circumstances and are not all-encompassing, universal, ‘abstract entities’. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s Scorn. unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Wow. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Pause. Sorry... How did you prove that rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God? You have yet to prove that there even IS a biblical God. You can’t rest an argument on an unproven point. I could just as easily say, ‘Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the great God Zeus. ‘What?’ you say. ‘You didn’t prove that God Zeus exists!’ I know...
The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. !!! This better be good. He (They.) believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. I’m looking out the window at the world right now ... I’m seeing a beautiful physical word. I haven’t seen a flying sky god yet, but I’ll get back to you. But laws of logic are not physical. ...are based on physical things... You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. But I do require a toe and stub-able object. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, Funny, I thought we all lived in the same world. yet he They. uses them to try to reason. The Atheist uses the world around them as a basis for reason – how absurdly stupid of us. This is inconsistent. *blink* He They. is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. What was the world view before Christianity? Oh sorry, you’ve always existed. My mistake. I must have imagined those couple of million years without your god. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he They uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his Their profession. Profession?
The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif Yes, because it is impossible to prove the existence of air... Bite me. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? Well, it doesn’t exist in space. Can I argue that? But I’ll give you the point, it would be stupid to argue the non-existence of the physical molecule of air. He This fictional entity created for an absurd, irrelevant point which has about as much to do with proof of god as grass would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air actually, the Atheist wouldn’t argue against the existence of air because they’re in love with the material world, remember?, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. You’re actually extending this point? Are you aware that not all similes are relevant? Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. Actually, you never made an effort to prove that god exists OR that the laws of logic have anything to do with this mysterious entity. They seemed to get along just fine before he was created... Also, this argument seems to be alternating between ‘laws of logic’ ‘reason’ and LoNC which aren’t exactly the same thing. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong. That is the most true thing you have said yet.

How can the atheist respond?

The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” Check.  But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” Wow, you’re really keen on this one. Has anyone pointed out to you that it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument? Let me rephrase it for you, ‘But this is no different than the bank manager saying, “Scallops really should be sold on the moon.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. I’m about to lose patience here. Just pretend I’m scowling after every line. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, Scorn. not a profession of belief in Him. How do you figure? You never actually got around to explaining that. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic Stop. Why would an Atheist argue that ‘god gave him his mind’? That’s, to borrow your turn of phrase, ‘like claiming the non-existent air is responsible for speech’. —and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. Scowl. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason. *blink* And I mean that Steven Moffat style.
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” Or the universe, but I’ll pay it. But conventions are (by definition) conventional. Like I just said. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. So, if I don’t agree with gravity, it’ll bugger off? But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). Yeah, hence what I said before. Why did we even start this thread? I feel a metaphor coming on... So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. I am a MartianEarthling. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. !!! LIKE LIGHT BUT YOU SAID THAT THE LAW CAN’T BE BROKEN. YOU LOSE! Clearly that wouldn’t do. Depends on your understanding of quantum physics. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. No shit. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. I’d love to know when it became optional to ‘pick’ the details of universal laws. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard. Well, no... It doesn’t matter what people have to say about universal laws, they’ll just keep on being universal.
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” Frak, what? No seriously, what? Let’s try this again. Matter and Force operate based upon universal laws. These interactions have NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS. Nothing whatsoever. They will and have continued to interact independent of us since whenever they started interacting. Humans understand, discover and interpret these laws because our brains are able to reason. Brains work, in the most basic of senses, through chemical interactions. Laws of Logic are not comprised of electro-chemical interactions in the brain. But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. Duh. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. That is so confused. Actually, it’s a good example of the ‘humans are the most important thing in the universe’ logic. In any case, I vote we put a brain on Mars just in case.  In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain. Why are we still talking about this? It must be universal, ‘make up a stupid statement for your opposition to say, then go into detail about how stupid it is. Continue to use it as an example of their dumbness if you wish.’
Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: Is this another imagined answer? “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Ding ding ding. Another made up response. How about, “The laws of logic work  because they exist, and because they exist, we use them.” Hey, it was you who said that we were materialistic... Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. No,  it was an answer you made up for us which we never actually gave. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. And the skies part allowing the rays of sunlight to touch the Earth. The question is comma why do they exist in the first place? No shit. I’ve been answering that since the start. How can the atheist I can’t help but noticed we’ve lost a capital somewhere along the line. account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? See above. I’m not typing it all out for you again. How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only? Once again, it’s all written above. Something about laws being based on material things and ceasing to exist once said materials vanish.
As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. Or, they could actually understand the universe and be perfectly capable of explaining complex ideas like, ‘universal laws’ and ‘the material universe’. This is a huge concession; which, we never actually made. after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God Scorn. exists. Actually, notice that we didn’t. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. Hmm... so far we’re going pretty good. How’s you flying unicorn theory holding up? He must still justify the laws of logic. Been there. Done that. Bored now. Why do they exist? *sigh*And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? I’m still not seeing this magical world of immaterialism. In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? For the thousandth time... The atheist cannot answer these questions. !!! His Their worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational. Okay...

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. !!! It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As your fabulously solid argument has proved beyond all shadows of material doubts. How could I have not seen through this veil of reason? SCORN. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil A Christian Philosopher who couldn’t possibly have a tainted view of Atheism put it, “[A]How could the ‘A’ be left out? Then it just says, ‘theism presupposes theism’...theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Biblehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif; Colossians 2:3http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.35/t.gif). Great. Let’s quote this encyclopaedia of the universe again. Did I mention it was only a thousand years old? But that’s okay, because the universe is only six times that... *SCORN*  Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, Rational proof? it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God Scorn. has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible? My eyes glossed over. You were using an invisible sky ‘god’ as the basis for reason and then muttered some strange off hand to evolution.
Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. Want to put materialistic money on that? The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. Aw, how sweet of you. They can because they too are made in God’s Scorn. image and have access to God’s Scowl. laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. *eye roll* Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. Wow, I like how you just snuck in that ‘moral’ point so wholly unconnected with the discussion at hand. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. Now I’m just giving up. I’m going to take my bundle of contradiction in search of an argument worth answering. He they! STOP PROJECTING YOUR PATRIARCHAL WORLD VIEW ONTO ATHEISM! reasons and does science ‘does science’ nice., yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. Were you ever going to prove that point? On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience. SCORN!

 
 
 
scratch_ar: arghscratch_ar on June 20th, 2008 05:29 am (UTC)
Wow. Seriously. In this day and age how can anyone still believe in ANY omnipotent being let alone the famously changeable Christian 'god'?! Christianity changes more often that I do my underwear (so that's alot, ok?) and encompasses more 'gods' than there are grains of sand on a beach. Which Christian 'god', incidentally, was he referring to? The Catholic one? The Morman one? The Baptist one? The Anglican one? Jehovah of the Jehovah's Witness, perhaps? It wasn't the Jewish one, surely! You know, the 'original' Christian 'god'?

Pah. Ppl are stupid.
ellymelly: look dude...ellymelly on June 20th, 2008 05:38 am (UTC)
lol I know. but i was in one of those *respond* moods. I'll have to check who it was that actually wrote the article, but they are real nutcases! Seriously.

Still, i found his 'made up atheist responses' very amusing.

that, and his belief that, 'laws of logic are made by chemical reactions in the brain'. :D!!!

where's my flaming torch???!!! hell, where's my 'flame' icon!!!!!
scratch_arscratch_ar on June 20th, 2008 05:50 am (UTC)
Hmm, yes, it's clear he spends a LOT of time around real live Atheists lol

Oh! And, I love the 'air/god' metaphor! He really, really liked that one.
ellymelly: look dude...ellymelly on June 20th, 2008 06:12 am (UTC)
*sniff* i want to be a sky god... we can do that... right?
scratch_arscratch_ar on June 20th, 2008 06:16 am (UTC)
It's a material world, we can see the sky...I see no logical reason why we can't.

*dons her 'Sky God' hat*

It's the hat, see, that makes it all official like.
ellymelly: childrenellymelly on June 20th, 2008 06:59 am (UTC)
I bought the t-shirt.
pancake_susi: bitchpancake_susi on June 20th, 2008 08:46 am (UTC)
I second everything you said.

And you better pray to all those christian gods or you will burn in hell.
ellymelly: remove the crazy manellymelly on June 20th, 2008 10:07 am (UTC)
I think I wrote more than him in the end lmao!
Purpleyin/Hans: facepalmmissyvortexdv on June 20th, 2008 01:50 pm (UTC)
See icon. I could only read about 2/5th's before getting so infuritated I had to give up for my sanity...