Let's Examine the Claims of Atheists - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15162510
Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion

The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.

The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority


If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion.)




Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]
The religious have better mental health into adulthood.
The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]
Global News reported:
“ Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found.
According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]
People of faith live longer than atheists.
For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity.
These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data.

The study, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science today, found that on average people whose obituary mentioned they were religious lived an extra 5.64 years.
Atheists commit suicide far more often than those of faith, which is clearly not "rational"
"Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:
"Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3]

The list of atheist shooters and serial killers does not correspond to claims of intellectual superiority and rationality.

Atheists have a long record of being mass shooters and militant atheism in general has a causal association with mass murder.
Due to this fact, peer reviewed research published in academic journals has found that society-at-large is likely to hold atheists responsible for capital criminal acts and that even atheists are likely to assume that serial killers are fellow atheists.[2][3][4]
_______________________________________

“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler


"...indoctrinating them (scholars) with materialism, atheism, and the theory of evolution - the Chinese Communist Party systematically brainwashed a new generation of students, instilling hatred toward traditional culture. ... the CCP promoted atheism and launched ideological attacks against the belief in god.... using methods of violence and high pressure to suppress, persecute and, eliminate religions including the murder of religious practitioners." - The Epoch Times, July 29, 2019






Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243





The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. – The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 240







Irrational Atheism

Atheists always claim to be more rational and more intelligent than Christians. They do not provide evidence of their arrogant, pretentious claim, but even if they did, it does not begin to prove their claim that God does not exist. Implied but not stated is the presumption that BECAUSE atheists are much smarter than you are, THEY must be right, and YOU must be wrong. That does not logically follow, and is a clear Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. So the statement of intellectual superiority itself is irrational.



Atheists claim that "there is no proof" of God. They seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that proof only exists in mathematics. So says mathematics professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.


His remark is echoed by the late Carl Sagan, a militant agnostic and Leftist, who said, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." Atheists seem to dispute even their beloved Carl Sagan as they insist that they know for certain that Darwin was indisputably right, though it is not known "for certain," according to Sagan, and therefore, what need for God? Atheists Stalin and Hitler agreed wholeheartedly.
#15168683
Atheists always claim to be more rational and more intelligent than Christians. They do not provide evidence of their arrogant, pretentious claim, but even if they did, it does not begin to prove their claim that God does not exist. Implied but not stated is the presumption that BECAUSE atheists are much smarter than you are, THEY must be right, and YOU must be wrong. That does not logically follow, and is a clear Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. So the statement of intellectual superiority itself is irrational.


First of all, in my experience, Christians come across as arrogant much more often than atheists do. Atheists admit that they could be wrong about their views, where Christians are less willing to do this.

Secondly, in my experience, atheists do in fact tend to be a lot more intelligent from what I have seen. Christians typically give really weak arguments that atheists are able to easily refute.

I have interacted in the atheist vs. theist debates online for about 15 years, and that's the pattern I have seen.
#15180551
MrWonderful wrote:

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists



What we say is that you can't use religion in science. And that if you are using a data driven approach to life, fairy tales are also off the menu.

I'm not like the other guy, I am arrogant.

But then I have reason to be.
#15180696
Sandzak wrote:
I have just one question for atheists how could such a complicated code like the DNA be written just by coincidence???



It wasn't written, it evolved.

If you want to throw evolution under the bus, good luck. It may be the most thoroughly supported theory in all of the sciences.

Evolution is fairly complicated, as I remember it has 5 parts, some of which are simply the facts of evolution.

This is more than can be handled in a forum. So try this:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231180640/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Evolution%3A+What+the+Fossils+Say+and+Why+It+Matters+by+Donald+Prothero.&qid=1626102484&sr=8-1
#15180986
late wrote:It wasn't written, it evolved.

If you want to throw evolution under the bus, good luck. It may be the most thoroughly supported theory in all of the sciences.

Evolution is fairly complicated, as I remember it has 5 parts, some of which are simply the facts of evolution.

This is more than can be handled in a forum. So try this:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231180640/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Evolution%3A+What+the+Fossils+Say+and+Why+It+Matters+by+Donald+Prothero.&qid=1626102484&sr=8-1


I believe in evolution, but I am not convinced about the start of life. Single cell organisms who were the begining of life have a so complicated code that just super brains with a lot of tech understand this (2 Billion years later).
#15180987
Sandzak wrote:

Single cell organisms who were the begining of life have a so complicated code that just super brains with a lot of tech understand this (2 Billion years later).



"The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of singleand double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought.

We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world. The origin and evolution of DNA replication mechanisms thus occurred at a critical period of life evolution that encompasses the late RNA world and the emergence of the Last Universal Cellular Ancestor (LUCA) to the present three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea.)."
#15180990
Sandzak wrote:I have just one question for atheists how could such a complicated code like the DNA be written just by coincidence???


It's complex to you, but not very complex overall. Your statement is largely just arbitrary. How are you even defining what is complex, and what isn't?

This thread is kind of dumb overall.
#15180993
I think the atheist mythology is pretty metal.

First if all, we are all living in an explosion. An explosion that is creating spacetime as it explodes.

Some parts of this explosion have their own smaller explosions that are only the size of the solar system. And this shoots dust into space that drift for millions of years before turning into a giant rock ball with molten lava in the middle.

And then some of this dust starts arranging itself. And then when the arrangements are weird enough, it starts to think.

And if that was not cool and badass and weird enough, this is where the evidence has led us. The explosion tells us this story.

That is way cooler than some sky friend tale.
#15181011
Sandzak wrote:Without the DNA-Code it can not replicate.


No. Lots of things in nature can replicate without DNA.

The classic example is a snowflake. All six arms of the snowflake are replicas of each other even though snowflakes have no DNA.
#15181012
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Lots of things in nature can replicate without DNA.

The classic example is a snowflake. All six arms of the snowflake are replicas of each other even though snowflakes have no DNA.



Snowflakes are not living.1 snowflake can not become 2 snoflakes like single cell organisms.

btw snowflakes have all different patterns according mathematics there have never fallen the same pattern of snowflakes.
Last edited by Sandzak on 14 Jul 2021 20:20, edited 1 time in total.
#15181013
Sandzak wrote:
Snowflakes are not living, and every snowflake is not the same. 1 snowflake can not become 2 snoflakes like single cell organisms.

btw snowflakes have all different patterns according mathematics there fall never the same pattern of snowflakes ever.



Why are you ignoring the science?

"The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of singleand double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought.

We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world. The origin and evolution of DNA replication mechanisms thus occurred at a critical period of life evolution that encompasses the late RNA world and the emergence of the Last Universal Cellular Ancestor (LUCA) to the present three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea.)."
#15181014
Sandzak wrote:Snowflakes are not living.1 snowflake can not become 2 snoflakes like single cell organisms.

btw snowflakes have all different patterns according mathematics there have never fallen the same pattern of snowflakes.


I never claimed snowflakes breed.

I did say that the form of a single snowflake shows that inorganic materials can replicate.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Rich , you are a closet Russia apologist, aren[…]

I strongly believe @Scamp and @BlutoSays only […]

Depends on if Putin is on Christ's side, the only[…]

In other words, the argument in the OP has been u[…]