15 questions for Atheists
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2012, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 06:08 PM by Jackrabbit.)
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
SoG is an asshat, i give him no more weight than Comfort or W. L. Craig or any of the other nutjobs out there,
Even if he did discredit evolutionary theory how will that even convert atheists? as if its some atheist dogma or the evolution is the atheist bible...
And even if he did discredit it how does that in any way merit creationism or a magic man in the sky?
what he's doing is not new, unoriginal and right out stupid; he might as well try and discredit relativity or gravity or thermodynamics for all the good it will do.
Questioning evolution? yes sure go right ahead, interogation of evidence is the pillar on which all scientific theory stand on
but we all know his motives, hes not seeking knowledge or trying to find out the truth hes trying to undermine it and spread
his own crackpot theories. Science stands on its merits.

*CAUTION*: Reading this pamphlet might deactivate your mental capacities, SoG and affiliates are not responsible for any thinking loss, rectal bleeding
spontaneous stupidity you might recieve from reading, read at own risk.

Reminds me of Comforts "introduction" to Darwins original book.

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jackrabbit's post
14-01-2012, 04:38 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
i kinda want to get a shirt and add a caption under it "then plug your ears, ignore every one and shout scripture at people" i try not to be an jerk, but its tempting Confused

Google is one of my best friends Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2012, 07:36 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I didn't bother to read any of the questions, for this reason: Even on those occasions in which science doesn't know how something works or how something happened (there are a number of things that science doesn't understand yet, and scientists know this and will freely admit what they don't know), this doesn't mean that it was therefore the work of some deity. It's a false dichotomy.

I can look at a car crash on the highway, and wonder how the hell someone managed to flip their car over and end up with it pointing in the direction opposite the flow of traffic. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that I should automatically think that Thor dropped out of the sky and knocked it over that way with his hammer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
I can answer this easily.

Disproving evolution, or proving intellegent design doesn't prove a god. Complexity =/= god
If intellegent design was proven, it wouldn't prove the god of the bible.

So, prove to me Yahweh, and I'll convert.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2012, 11:52 PM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
1. How did life originate? While no one has answered this yet (we can only guess, because it's likely impossible to find out where life actually started, and replicating it in a laboratory defeats the point), we have found strands of Pre-RNA in the oceans called "self-replicating polymers" that were probably the building blocks of primitive life. But we don't have to have an answer to this... "I don't know" is better than making up an answer just to claim that we have one.

2. How did the DNA code originate? See above answer, it's the same. The question "What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?" is a red herring, as it presupposes that this is a 'coding system' apart from our analogizing it to man-made codes. If you posit another natural 'coding system' (as they would define it), you wouldn't even be proving them wrong... they'd just call it another example of an intelligent designer.

3. How could mutations (accidental copying mistakes) create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? It simply does, in the same way that a game of telephone (chinese whispers) often gives a changed or garbled version of the original message but doesn't end with nonsense. If you change DNA in a small way, it doesn't just 'fail to work'... one should observe how DNA actually works rather than theorize on how it 'should' work.

4. Why is Natural Selection... taught as Evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? That's a loaded question, as evolution doesn't posit the origin of life (that's abiogenesis), and it does explain diversity just fine. This argument almost sounds like an argument from incredulity, too, because it seems the one asking this question understands the answer but simply doesn't accept it.

5. How did new biochemical pathways... originate? Another argument from incredulity, this time related to probability. The link I provided in question #1 is probably the best explanation of evolutionary probability on the internet.

6. Living things look like they were designed... how do we know they were not designed? We don't... there's just a lack of evidence. Science can't prove a negative (such as "there is no other life in the universe"). Occam's Razor suggests that we shouldn't compound our answers with unnecessary elements, and since scientists see no need for an intelligent designer (because evolution already explains the rise of life and its diversity), they don't assume one.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate? Any number of questions can be asked along this line of thought relating to evolution (How did such and such arrive to this point?) but that's what biologists answer. And they've answered this one, multiple times. Here's just one example I found through Google.

8. How did sex originate? Tiring, these arguments from ignorance. But we're not even ignorant, and we have answers if the theist asking this simply looked it up.

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? the question assumes that they are expected. Bones eventually rot (like any organic matter), and almost everyone has observed this. It takes extraordinary conditions to create fossils, and even the ones that get created can be lost due to natural disasters. We live on a turbulent world that doesn't give a fuck about the fossils it harbors. Shit happens.

10. How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged... if evolution has changed [all other creatures over time]? One would guess that their environment changes little or not at all. There are an awful lot of sea creatures who haven't changed (like sharks) because their environment tends to be pretty homogenous and expansive (so they can just move if the environment becomes hostile).

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality? The question assume that these are made by 'blind chemistry', rather than as human constructs. Chemistry is physical, and these things are not physical... why would one lead to another? If by mind/intelligence a person means "sentience", Daniel Dennett provided a wonderful explanation of its evolution in the book Kinds of Minds. I'd recommend it to everyone.

12. Why is evolutionary 'just-so' story-telling tolerated? One might ask the same of the bible. Scientists try to make the story fit what information they're given, and these are usually cited as 'best guesses' rather than 'fact'... just as philosophers do with bible concepts. Trying to demand more than is currently possible with given information is just unreasonable to ask, isn't it?

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Medicine, especially vaccines. Ask a biologist if you want to know.

14. Science involves experimenting... why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science? Evolution isn't history... it still happens. You can run 'operational' experiments, such as Richard Lenski did. But I don't understand this question if posited by a believer in intelligent design, as it would suffer from this same dilemma. And with ID, you can't run an experiment like Lenski's, or any known 'operational' experiment.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea... taught in science classes? This question wrongly asserts that evolution is fundamental or religious, and even stranger it assumes that ID is not. What percentage of ID theorists are atheist? It's obvious that it doesn't conflict with the religious idea of creationism, but for legal reasons tries to distance itself from it. It's time for some honestly.

It's alright to question evolution, but rhetorical questions are worthless... why pretend to seek knowledge if you don't actually want it? And those who scatter these pamphlets are clearly not seeking knowledge.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 12:06 AM
RE: 15 questions for Atheists
(13-06-2011 07:14 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Soooo, he hopes to "convert" 50% of atheists through a giant Argument from Ignorance pamphlet?

"I don't know how this happened and can't be bothered with a science book or a google search, therefore God exists?"

And what does this have to do with atheists? 50% less atheists? Even if Shock wasn't quote mining and appealing to the mindless, and actually had cogent arguments that disproved evolution... how would that affect the number of atheists? Once again, a theist assumes that "atheist" is synonymous with "faith in science."

Also, the first 9 questions are the same exact question; the origin of life as we know it. And the rest are pure biased rhetoric. I would expect nothing less from the Special Olympic Bronze Medal Winner that is SoG.

Agreed. If we knew to an absolute how everything originated then there would be no debate, no question, and none of these question would exist. However, I think it is more important to continue to pursue it rather than to attempt to come to the end of an argument by going - "Well... We can't determine it to an absolute and we don't know 100% so it must be creation." the argument is silly.

What still blows my mind is why they seem convinced that we should sway back to the other side of the spectrum simply because we do not yet know. Then again, I would have to also for a moment assume that I'm not arguing with someone truly ignorant...

If we teach a theory that is absolute in school (such as creation) then we prove ourselves to be ignorant by researching no further. We will forever remain a futile and primitive species because then what would be the point of discovering the mysteries of the universe? "That's a solar system! Look!" .... "No no... don't look.. that's blasphemous. It's miracles. Nothing else. If you try to explain it then you're dabbling with god. Don't do that." oh... my bad??

If we teach science, math, physics and give our fellow man the TOOLS to be curious, then we become closer and closer than we could imagine. One human who is convinced to remain ignorant is a wasted mind. It is truly unfortunate.

Perhaps it really is miraculous. And perhaps someday we would discover there is something that "created" the universe. If that ends up being the case then I like to imagine that there is nothing on this planet now that would or could explain it. Not yet. But until someone can prove me otherwise, I will always be curious. I will always speculate. I will always dig. Why try and reason with a creationist when you could spend an equal amount of time pondering the mysteries of our universe Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: