There are so many examples of why atheists aren't really people of reason. They claim rationalism and science but don't hold their beliefs up to the scrutiny of science and logical reasoning. (of course I mostly refer to the modern, aggressive new athiest)
For example a lot of the things they put forward they don't seem to know are just beliefs they have which aren't critically examined but instead are question-begged.
Krauss, (IIRC) said we are stardust, and your left hand's atoms came from a different star to your right hand.
Such "scientists" don't know reason well. This is question-begging because there is nothing in atoms or heavy elements that would show any star-origin. But on top of that what makes this reasoning worse is that according to the reason atheists don't actually study, it is modo-hoc reductionism. Which is the fallacy of putting too much emphasis upon what something is made out of, or only looking at it's make-up rather than weighing it's full nature.
Example; "This car chassis is no different to any other metal from naturally occurring rocks."
But that is wrong because the car chassis is designed unlike the natural metal, and it has specified complexity. It's the same with human beings, to say we are just what we are made of ignores the specified complexity with which our skeletons are put together along with our organs. It ignores all of the correct materials we are made from and the contingency planning, etc...
Another argument atheists accept uncritically, is abiogenesis. They don't need to directly prove this fantastic claim it would seem (phantasticus axioma)instead they just believe they need two gormless cliches from popular culture;
1. There's so much space out there with habitable zones that there just has to be other life.
2. If there's water there will be life.
In fact according to reason these are examples of reverse conditional implications. The correct ones are; "if there's water depending life there will be water", and, "if there is life then there is a habitable place for it."
Do atheists notice these errors? No, because they are too busy desperately swallowing any sophistry that can fool both them and the gullible people that believe they're talking science.
In fact since Urey/Miller all they have shown scientifically is how abiogenesis is simply science-fiction. But they don't care about that, they simply ASSUME this giant claim is true and pretend it is scientific. In fact it is the science-fiction of natural magic at best. The same evidence exists for phlogiston spaghetti monsters spewing out primordial forms in the remote past.
Then there is the willful ignorance of design by the stupid fallacy of irrelevance that argues that, "the only way you can know something is designed is if you see the process." What a fine example of mendax flagrante. (flagrant lies)
Are atheists saying they are so silly that they think that if we got a message signal in mathematics from SETI that they wouldn't conclude it was designed by an intelligent alien? Are they really saying that if we went to the moon and found an alien craft that it wasn't designed because we didn't see it designed?
According to statistical probability, if you have an old F1 race car stored with al the same working parts as a real one, what foolish reasoning would it be to say, "the downforce on the wings will only count if we see it corner fast, otherwise the downforce doesn't exist."
Of course it still exists. And according to statistical probability, if you find an object with all of the usual features of intelligence design it stands a 100% chance of being designed. (the operative word being, "statistical")
Then there is the bad design argument.
Again it's fallacious reasoning called, slothful induction, to ignore the vast evidence of design in life and just focus on one or two designs they deem less than optimal. Imagine a supermodel without blemish was deemed the most beautiful woman in the world but you said she was ugly as a whole because she had a small skin tag on her neck.
If atheists are so well reasoned, why can't they figure out the obvious error.
It is a great example of nitpicking because for every design they argue is bad you can find 100 in that system that are excellent design.
All of their examples have been debunked. The complaint about the blind spot in our eye actually has been shown to only count as 0.2% of the visual field. (negligible). The wiring of the retina is not incorrect because of the excellence of the designed Mueller-cell system that circumvents the nerve net. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is just the remnants of the problematics of embryological growth and it doesn't show any poor design just because it takes a winding route so the complaint doesn't count, and recently the panda's thumb has been shown by scientists to actually be well designed. (critical analysis also asks the question, "how well designed was the rest of the panda, since determining if it was designed shouldn't be judged by 0.3% of it's anatomy" (slothful induction)
In other words, atheists don't actually listen to science on this stuff, they just parrot Dawkins ad infinitum.
If atheists represented reason they would know that biomimetics through reductio ad absurdum proves that the design-standard in life is far more intelligent than human intelligence.
Finally, many irrational atheists compare God to Santa, IPU or fairies.
This is a fallacy of false equivalence because it doesn't matter if God is similar to other posited undetectable things or invisible things if it can be shown there can be things which are true even though they are undetectable directly. Other possible dimensions, higgs bosons or things like it, or undiscovered science which isn't able to be discovered yet, or other aspects to reality beyond human knowledge.
It's question-begged that God is false like Santa or an invisible unicorn. It's also an important logical difference that no rational adults believe in Santa or fairies. You really would only get a few flaky people believe in such superficial concepts meaning there must be rational reasons to believe in God or adults wouldn't believe in God.
CONCLUSION; This is just a taste of some atheist arguments that are devoid of any sound reason or any science to back them even though they spread the false propaganda that atheists represent science and reason and Christians only represent religion and wishful thinking. (which again, is a stereotype from their propaganda which yet again fails reason given such binary thinking only represents a false dichotomy, once again proving they proclaim reason but fail to observe reason in all these errors they make which makes their patronising superiority-complex incredibly ironic.) Advice; if you're going to be supercilious and insult and talk down to Christians, at least do your homework first so you can avoid looking an absolute PLANK.
No comments:
Post a Comment