Intelligent Design

Astonishingly Stupid Things Atheists Say

Spread the love

In the thread to another post, “Evolve” writes:

There’s absolutely no evidence that any God exists . . .

There you have it folks. All this wrangling back and forth for millennia solved in a flash by Evolve’s super-intellect. Oh Evolve, where have you been all of my life? You have decreed there is “absolutely no evidence” for the existence of God. How much easier my life would have been if I had known about your decree earlier; if I had known that one needn’t actually engage with evidence; if I had known one can simply decree that what is thought to be evidence by one’s opponents “absolutely” does not exist.

Evolve has decreed there is “absolutely no evidence” for the existence of God. As with the law of the Medes and the Persians, his decree is unalterable. So he has written; so it shall be. “But, but I think there is evidence,” you might say. Nonsense. Evolve has decreed otherwise:

The fine tuning of the universe. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The moral sense. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The fact that there is something instead of nothing. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin). Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The irreducible complexity of biological systems. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The miracles that have been reported throughout history. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

My subjective self-awareness. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve

In all seriousness, one wonders how someone who obviously went to a school somewhere (he can turn on his computer and write a blog comment after all), can say such an astonishingly stupid thing. Certainly it is possible that Evolve could weigh the evidence for God’s existence and find it insufficient. Many have done so. But no intelligent person says there is “absolutely” no evidence (that word is particularly ironic; for materialists like Evolve there are no absolutes except the absolute certainty one can have that God does not exist). That our schools could produce such a puny intellect is cause for at least concern if not despair.

25 Replies to “Astonishingly Stupid Things Atheists Say

  1. 1
    mrchristo says:

    The atheist is begging the question because he has to assume that what is presented is not evidence.

    Furthermore when a person is determined not to believe in a Creator because they hate the idea then nothing that is presented will qualify as evidence or they will put the bar very high so that it is unlikely anything will convince them.

    Atheists are willing to believe in logical contradictions like claiming morality is just man made and people decide for themselves what is right or wrong while telling other people that their actions are wrong which contradicts their declaration that people decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

    They are willing to believe that life arose from inorganic matter on its own which violates the known law of biogenesis and how nature operates. They are willing to believe the illogical notion that nature existed before it existed. They mock the idea of a Creator as “invisible” and yet are willing to appeal to an unseen multiverse for fine tuning etc.

    Anything to avoid the idea there is a Creator even if it leads to their abandonment of logic.

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA

    Certainly it is possible that Evolve could weigh the evidence for God’s existence and find it insufficient. Many have done so. But no intelligent person says there is “absolutely” no evidence (that word is particularly ironic; for materialists like Evolve there are no absolutes except the absolute certainty one can have that God does not exist).

    Good point. If any progress can be made on this, it would be at least that people like Evolve would recognize that evidence exists in various forms and at various levels and strengths. The interpretation of evidence is almost as important at the evidence itself also.

    What causes an obstacle, however, is that for some, ‘evidence’ means only ‘directly observed and physically measurable’.

    So, “there’s absolutely no physical evidence that immaterial things exist”.

    Ok, true enough. But the sentence itself refers to an immaterial concept. The idea of ‘evidence’ is immaterial in itself. There’s nowhere in nature or an a laboratory or in the cells of any living being that one can find a thing which is ‘the word evidence’ and what it means.

    Science itself is immaterial. The rules of science cannot be observed or measured by any scientific instruments. They have no material substance.

    Therefore: “There is zero evidence that any rules of science exist”?

    This could go on and on, but as above, if we could make some progress just on this one point, then that would be a positive result.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    SA @ 2: Perhaps you are right. I don’t know. That our education system has produced intellectual borgs like “Evolve” who seem incapable of independent thought and can only spew the vacuous agitprop generated by the collective hive mind is enough to lead me to despair.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA – I know what you mean. Despair comes in when the same arguments are repeated after having been refuted countless times.

  5. 5
    Evolve says:

    ///The fine tuning of the universe.///

    The fine tuning argument is flawed. It results from (1) seeing everything from a teleological perspective and (2) a failure to appreciate the role of chance and contingency.

    ///The moral sense. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve///

    Moral sense evolved in our ancestors as we took to a social life. No need to bring in imaginary Gods.

    ///The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause.///

    Why can’t a natural universe have a natural cause? If there’s a supernatural cause what caused that supernatural cause in the first place? This argument only leads to an infinte regress.

    ///The fact that there is something instead of nothing.///

    So if God is something, what caused God? Again, invoking an imaginary God only pushes the problem one step back, it does not solve it. You ultimately must explain where God came from.

    ///The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin).///

    The overwhelming odds against the existence of Barry Arrington – only 1 in 50 million sperm cells (no: of sperm cells in a man’s ejaculate) could have fused with one egg cell to produce Barry Arrington. And this had to happen in every generation leading up to Barry. Go back just 10 generations and calculate the odds – it will be impossibly low. Yet Barry is here, and now he says that can’t happen by chance. But it did happen by chance!

    ///The irreducible complexity of biological systems.///

    Refuted a million times. No credible scientist or scientific organization will vouch for irreducible complexity.

    ///The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA.///

    Poor analogy. DNA is just a chemical made up of a sequence of monomers. What follows from it is pure chemistry, not magic. We can alter DNA sequence and chemistry as we desire in the laboratory, and it follows all established reaction pathways in predictable fashion. Computer codes are not chemicals.

    ///The miracles that have been reported throughout history.///

    None of which have any scientific validity. Subjective experiences cannot be projected as objective truths.

    ///My subjective self-awareness.///

    Many animals are known to have self-awareness as well. You’re not special. When brains develop, so do their capabilities.

    ///The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life. ///

    At least we scientists don’t pretend to know all the answers. We don’t solve the enigma in a split second by invoking imaginary Gods. We work hard to find clues and evidence. Theists grab our hard-earned evidence and spin it to fit their pet preconceived notions. It’s very easy for them since their God is such an unknown and undefined entity that they can mold around any premise/challenge they encounter!

    I repeat, there’s absolutely no evidence for any God to begin with, let alone attributing phenomena to him.

  6. 6
    mrchristo says:

    “The fine tuning argument is flawed.”

    Fine tuning is real. It takes just as much faith to believe in a multiverse to explain it.

    “a failure to appreciate the role of chance and contingency.”

    Oh Holy Chance.

    ///The moral sense. Poof, gone. Decreed to be “not evidence” by Evolve///

    “Moral sense evolved in our ancestors as we took to a social life.”

    That would be explaing how a sense of morality came about “is” and is not explaining why anything is morally right or wrong “ought”

    To try and get an ought from an is commits a naturalistic fallacy as nature has no goal for how people should behave.

    Your explanation is descriptive but morality is prescriptive about why we should or should not do anything. There is no should or should not within nature. Nature just is.

    “No need to bring in imaginary Gods.”

    Seeing as you do not believe your sensory apparatus was created for truth then you have no credibility in accusing others in believing in the imaginary.

    “Why can’t a natural universe have a natural cause?”

    Because nature is that which exists within the universe, To say that nature existed prior to its own existence is to violate the law of non contradiction.

    “If there’s a supernatural cause what caused that supernatural cause in the first place? This argument only leads to an infinte regress.”

    Incorrect. You have to believe in an uncaused first cause to prevent an infinite regress. Believing in a never ending series of natural causes leads to infinite regress.

    “So if God is something, what caused God?”

    Begging the question. Assuming that the first cause required a cause.

    “Again, invoking an imaginary God”

    Yet you cannot show a Creator as imaginary. For somebody that is meant not to believe in a Creator then you sure take the position of being one yourself with your claimed omniscience.

    “You ultimately must explain where God came from.”

    You don’t need an explanation for the explanation otherwise you would never be able to explain anything and would have an infinite regress.

    “The overwhelming odds against the existence of Barry Arrington – only 1 in 50 million sperm cells (no: of sperm cells in a man’s ejaculate) could have fused with one egg cell to produce Barry Arrington. And this had to happen in every generation leading up to Barry. Go back just 10 generations and calculate the odds – it will be impossibly low. Yet Barry is here, and now he says that can’t happen by chance. But it did happen by chance!”

    It’s neccesary that with humans reproducing that we will get human offspring. It is not neccesary that a living organism is going to originate from non living matter by chance. Nothing in nature supports your faith of a living organism arising by chance and it violates the known law of biogenesis for how nature operates.

    ///The irreducible complexity of biological systems.///

    “Refuted a million times.”

    In your imagination.

    “No credible scientist or scientific organization will vouch for irreducible complexity.”

    Nice circular reasoning. Credible if they agree with you and if they do not then they are not credible.

    “Poor analogy. DNA is just a chemical made up of a sequence of monomers. What follows from it is pure chemistry, not magic.”

    Dna is far more complicated and Sophisticated so in that respect it might be a poor analogy. Yet you still believe in originated by chance.

    “We can alter DNA sequence and chemistry as we desire in the laboratory, and it follows all established reaction pathways in predictable fashion. Computer codes are not chemicals.”

    Ok look what intelligent agents can do in the laboratory. Good that it is not left to the chance you have faith in. Computer codes do not originate by chance either but you have faith that DNA which is orders of magnitude more complex and sophisticated did.

    “None of which have any scientific validity.”

    Ahhh the claim that only scientific claims have merit, yet this scientism claim that only scientific claims have merit is not a claim known through the scientific method.

    “At least we scientists don’t pretend to know all the answers.”

    OH Look, Another internet scientist.

    “We don’t solve the enigma in a split second by invoking imaginary Gods.”

    More question begging.

    “We work hard to find clues and evidence. Theists grab our hard-earned evidence and spin it to fit their pet preconceived notions.”

    Projection going on there.

    ” It’s very easy for them since their God is such an unknown and undefined entity that they can mold around any premise/challenge they encounter!”

    More Projection.

    “I repeat, there’s absolutely no evidence for any God to begin with”

    More begging of the question. Failed to show how the evidence is not evidence and just an unsophisticated tirade from somebody who hates the idea of there being a Creator.

  7. 7
    Rob says:

    Evolve,

    Not that I’m an expert at all but your rebuttals are so elementary it’s ridiculous. Many people could refute you better than me as I’m not really going to give back much of an argument but, then again, you’re not really giving an argument either other than saying your beliefs are true and that’s just the way it is…

    Fine-tuning: Of course you would say that from a materialistic perspective. You’re just saying the same thing as that in which you’re trying to refute, just from the opposite perspective.

    Moral sense: This evolved because you believed it evolved somehow? Evolution is true because it is true.

    Cause of universe and something from nothing: Ah, the old and tired “Who created God” question. If you know anything about theism, you would know that God is eternal and does not need a creator. I’d say this is much more plausible than trying to get a universe from nothing. It does not need to be explained where God came from.

    Odds against Darwinism: It seems to me your example helps the point. You admit the odds are fantastically low but it just happened, so there!

    Irreducible complexity: Refuted a million times by evolutionists who presuppose evolution.

    DNA: It’s JUST chemicals!? The analogy works because something so complex with obvious purpose infers design.

    Miracles: Never going to be convincing to someone who demands materialism exclusively.

    Self-awareness: Not sure about animals having self-awareness but the fact that we can comprehend and contemplate what we do makes us pretty darn special and unique. We are the only species out of many millions that have this ability but, yes, mine is not an argument from science so it must be false.

    OOL: How can you say outright that scientists do not pretend to know all the answers? They obviously admit they don’t know exactly how life started but they certainly believe dogmatically that it happened naturally, and they think that without a bit of evidence. So, how is this any more plausible than believing God created life?

    You wouldn’t accept the evidence for God if it hit you in the face, even though it is hitting you in the face!

  8. 8
    mdvirgilio says:

    If there is any evidence that proves that debating absolutist atheist fundamentalists like this Evolve creature is a total and complete waste of time, this is it.

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    Evolve @ 5. Are you really so stupid that you don’t understand the difference between evidence and your evaluation of evidence? The mind reels.

    Thank you for posting though. The fatuity of what passes for intellectual discourse among some atheists should be exposed as often as possible.

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    mrchristo and Rob. Thank you for your contribution, but you’re kind of missing the point. Of course Evolve’s rebuttals are weak. But the issue is not whether Evolve’s assessment of the evidence can be rebutted. The issue is whether any of this even counts for evidence. Evolve’s position is that if the evidence does not convince him, then for that very reason it does not even count as evidence! Lunacy; pure unadulterated idiocy.

  11. 11
    Barry Arrington says:

    mdvirgilio @ 8. I understand your point of view and if it were just me and Evolve, I would not bother. But remember the lurkers, tens of thousands visit this site very week. See my comment at 9.

  12. 12
    Henry Crun says:

    And Barry gives the game away: the intelligent designer is God. All that, er, “evidence” for intelligent design is evidence for God.

  13. 13
    jcfrk101 says:

    Even the most complex program can be reduced to an electric current, doesn’t mean that the application contains no functional complexity. The fact that DNA reacts like any other chemical does not mean there is no functional complexity and code. Truly an amazingly foolish argument.

  14. 14
    Eugen says:

    Evolve

    keep evolving and come back with much better than “There’s absolutely no evidence that any God exists”, please.

  15. 15
    Blue_Savannah says:

    Oh Evolve, you are so wrong little one.

  16. 16
    ForJah says:

    Neither 6, 7, nor 10 are evidence that “God” (whoever that might be) exists.

    1 and 2, I believe, are successfully rebutted(to the greatest depth) by John Loftus.

    3,4,5, 9 do not prove God either. 3 due to equivocation. 4 is an illogical question. 5. Odds against a theory are not evidence for a different theory. Im not even sure how to respond to 9 except with the word “What?”

    8 I believe was successfully refuted by Hume. We do not have a working definition of what a miracle is nor do we have the ability to determine when or if they occur as opposed to just a rare happenstance.

    Evolve was not evaluating evidence. He was evaluating whether proposed evidence is actual evidence. He seems to think it’s not. I believe he is correct.

  17. 17
    Cross says:

    ForJah @ 16

    “5. Odds against a theory are not evidence for a different theory.”

    No, but it is evidence that the theory is wrong.

    “We do not have a working definition of what a miracle is ”

    Here is one, you admit the above point.

    Cheers

  18. 18
    Andre says:

    Nano-tech machinery in living cells are not evidence? That is a mighty claim that needs some extraordinary evidence itself to prove it not so…. Evolve? Forjah? Are you even serious or do you just spew your nonsense here to amuse?

    You can not hand wave what we are seeing inside living cells with our very own eyes, if you do it means you don’t give a crap about truth……

  19. 19
    JimFit says:

    Evolve

    Chance can’t help you here, also Chance is a
    generalization of an event, it does not imply that increadible thinks can happen. Lets say that the chance for an accident in the freeway is 5%, when we find the cause of the accident and find a way to solve it, chance for an accident dicreases to 0%.

  20. 20
    Evolve says:

    mrchristo @ 6,

    ///Fine tuning is real. It takes just as much faith to believe in a multiverse to explain it.///

    No, fine-tuning is bogus and you don’t need any multiverse to write it off.
    A universe with any of countless other values of cosmological constants could have come into existence. That this universe with this set of values materialized occurred by sheer chance. This is just like how one sperm cell out of 50 million fused with one egg cell to produce you and me by chance. It could have been any of those 50 million cells, and in each case the result would have been different. However, none of those all other possibilities ever materialised, only one did – you/me.

    Galaxies, stars, planets & life all came about as mere consequences of how the universe ended up being. In other words, life is fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around.
    As Lawrence Krauss put it, we are fine-tuned to the earth’s gravity, not the other way around (i.e earth’s gravity is not fine-tuned to produce us). You guys are making the mistake of reversing the sense of cause and effect.

    Another mistake you make is to see teleology in everything. You’re assuming upfront that the goal of creation is to produce a universe supporting life and humans, therefore all values required for that purpose must be set exactly right in order to realise it. No, this universe was just one among countless other possibilities, any of which could have materialised. You’re ignoring the importance of random chance in bringing about phenomena.

  21. 21
    ForJah says:

    Andre,

    Nano-technology inside cells is not evidence for God.

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ForJah

    Nano-technology inside cells is not evidence for God.

    It came from somewhere/something. So, it’s evidence for some origin.

    What origin do you think it is evidence for? Random mutations?

  23. 23
    ForJah says:

    It is evidence that some type of intelligence might exist elsewhere in the universe and seeded life on earth. At most, It’s only evidence of a tenet of God which is indistinguishable from any other intelligence. ID admits this, BTW

  24. 24
    Barry Arrington says:

    ForJah, yes, the evidence is evidence for a designer. The identity of the designer cannot be deduced merely from this evidence. God is certainly a candidate. Therefore, the evidence makes it somewhat more probable that God exists. To be evidence, something need not, by itself, be conclusive. Evidence works cumulatively.

  25. 25
    Barry Arrington says:

    Comments on this thread are closed. Further comments on the subject should be placed on the “What is Evidence” thread.

Comments are closed.