The Irrational Views of Atheism...do you agree?

Question

The complete inadequacys of the athesit view point(s) are completely irrational and are a contradiction at best. First atheism cannot explain the existence of the world, the world crys out of an explanation and we find their first view that the world is eternal..yet flys in the face of modern science that which states that the universe had a beginning and is gradually running down. 2nd, view they give is that the universe had a beginning, but now they must account for what caused it. In other words they fail to offer a consistent explanation. We conclude that the atheistic world view is irrational and ultimately random, disorderly, transitive, and volatile. It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic.

The Christian theistic world view, however can explain these transcendental aspects of life. The uniformity of nature stems from Gods orderly design of the universe.

your thoughts?

Answer 1

The Atheist has no alternative other then to accept irrational answers.

Answer 2

There was nothing before the beginning of the universe. Time didn't even exist until the universe came into being, rendering cause-and-effect meaningless. Nothing 'caused' the big bang. Couldn't have been a cause for it. It just was. It had a definate beginning -- when time came into existence.

Modern science also doesn't say that the universe is 'running down' at all. In fact, the thing is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Hardly how I'd define 'running down'.

Christianity requires an uncaused creator. But everything supposedly has a beginning right? If God exists, then the world should be crying out for an explaination. Why this double standard?

Atheists are willing to accept upfront that we don't know how it all ultimately began, and that science may never get to the point it can answer that question. We don't explain away the beginning of the universe, we simply say, "Wait." As in, "Science can't answer that now, but a thousand years ago, it couldn't answer the movement of the visible planets either. We are in no hurry to find all the answers, we will continue to advance as we learn new things, and we will go in the direction they lead us. If you would like to know how this thing happens or how it works, either join the quest and aim your inquiries in this direction, or someone will have to come along and do those inquiries for humanity's sake. Either way, it will take patience and hard work. Be patient. Wait."

Science explains things. It admits it doesn't know everything and never can (Godel's Incompleteness Theorum). It simply continues to expand, slowly and steadily, and brings its theories closer and closer in line with the observable universe. Evolution is a fact, it is a theory of science. The 'big bang', though the theory has grown up and advanced a bit, is a fact -- it may be incomplete, we're still trying to figure out the essentials, but it is as close to the facts as we can get at the moment, and we're getting closer with every passing day.

And before you complain "but they're only theories!" -- in Science, a theory is a fact. More properly, it is a collection of tested and logically consistent hypotheses that explain an observed phenomenon better than any other given collection of hypotheses. That doesn't mean it's 100% air tight correct. It means that it's a good model for how things work. We may get a better model down the road (Newtonian physics vs. Einsteinian physics, for example), but the phenomenon the theory describes is known to exist, known to happen, it's only our understanding of it that is incomplete.

Answer 3

I am afraid that your logic is more than a little flawed. You are setting up strawman arguments, as though atheism is a unified spiritual/scientific cult. There is nothing like that out there.

Science is learning quite a bit by exploring the solar system. We have found out more how planets were formed, have been captured (in some cases) and even how some may have been lost. It is quite amazing how much we have learned in the last few years since the Hubble telescope has been functioning.

Christian religion was the organization that burned Bruno at the stake for saying the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth. Remember that? Gallileo was put under house arrest for believing the same thing. Where things like disease were thought to be the displeasure of God, science has brought us antibiotics to cure bacterial infections.

It amazes me how threatened Christians on Yahoo seem to be at the unbeliever. I think this is a sign of inherent disbelief at the core that must be constantly submerged by assertions of superiority. Let the atheists alone. You cannot prove your God to them by logic. There is no logical proof of God. Those that you offer are easily disassembled in freshman philosophy classes. Fact is, preaching a loving and caring God has many more problems, especially in reconciling the notion of evil upon innocents, than a simple disbelief in transcendent beings.

BTW, I am not an atheist. I have had direct experience and now consider myself Gnostic.

Answer 4

(Before I answer I want to point out that I'm an atheist.)

I also want to point out how wrong you are. Your faith explains things, so it must be right, good argument. Kind of (EXACTLY) how the Greeks used Jupiter and Neptune to explain how lightning and squalls work, and since it explains it, it must be right. Better pray to Neptune before you go near water.

In the other way you contradict logic, you seem to think humans are infallible. I have no Idea how certain things happen. Why? Because my tiny little human brain can't quite figure out everything, basically, I don't know. I don't know and that's alright. Maybe you should just admit that you don't know instead of jumping on a faith just because it explains it. And for examples involving the beginning of the universe, well I don't know for sure because I wasn't in any state of being at the time, nor were any other humans or life forms. We have some good theories though.

So over all I have to say it is a weak argument. "I don't know so it must be a miracle beyond knowing." Is that not arrogant?

Answer 5

Have you ever sat down and talked to an Atheist who know what they were talking about? Obviously not. I believe that the earth has been evolving since the earth was created. Religion was created by the people who were a product of living in a time where things could not be easily explained. So they attributed acts of Nature to acts of god.....Think about it like this..Christianity is no differernt then the Greeks thinking that Zeus was responsible for the lightning...They didn't realize that it was a build of electron particles...Science can explain this..but during times where there was no science...It had to be an out of worldly event...do you understand now.

Answer 6

The Christian theistic view may explain anything, but it can predict nothing. In order to survive as a species, we need a framework in which predictions can be made. Before science, the framework was constructed on untestable theories (i.e., religion), but it is no longer necessary to do this: we now know how things work (on earth, at least) and can make predictions on the basis of solid evidence. It is proveable that the predictive power of any theory derives strictly from its refutability, and since no religious belief is refutable, all such have no predictive power: they are useless.

Answer 7

Your question was very interesting in that you ignore a lot of things.

1. You mention current models of physics (big bang & entropy) and that atheists' explanations cannot explain them. Have you talked to a lot of physicists? Most physicists are not Christians, instead they are Deist or Weak/Strong Atheists.

2. You mention that Christians can explain these things. Okay, please present your testable theory on how it occurred. You can't, can you?

3. I think it is very funny that you are trying to disprove atheism by using the ideas of science. Science is concerned with the natural world. The supernatural (i.e. a god) is outside of the natural world and therefore outside the domain of science. Atheism is the true result of a scientific worldview.

Answer 8

Two Aussie doctors recently received the Nobel Prize in Medicine. They figured out — contrary to all received scientific dogma, and in the teeth of opposition from the medical priesthood — that common stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and could be treated with antibiotics instead of surgery.

Somehow, in some way, these two medical prophets intuited an aspect of the Logos. Whence came their inspiration? We don’t know; we can't even make any intelligent guesses. My money is on (what we call) God the Holy Spirit, acting somehow, in some fashion, possibly at the subatomic level, perhaps not even volitionally

Answer 9

Funny, I don't hear the world crying out for an explanation. Maybe it's the voices in your head.

Science doesn't work the same as religion. In science, you develop a hypothesis and either prove or disprove that hypothesis with repeatable tests. That is the case with Evolution and the big bang theories (hence the name THEORY) which are being reinforced by new discoveries every single day

Religion required believers to "have faith" and some entity is responsible for the world and is in contact with 2.1 billion people all at the same time. I guess we should start calling it the theory of jesus.

This is the same church that called the concept that the Earth goes around the sun heretical and that roses were red because they represented the blood of christ.

Answer 10

Why is it irrational to be an atheist? Atheists simply don't believe in a god. They don't try to explain the origins of the universe or claim to know anything.
UNLIKE Christians, who believe that an old man in the clouds created the first man from dust, the first woman from a rib bone, a "talking snake" and a tree that produces "magic" apples.
Ha!Ha! gimmie a break you hypocrite!

Answer 11

Typical explanation from a religious fan.

Religion can not explain the origin of the world either, although they offer some extremely lame "you must believe it because we say so" explanations. If you think of fairy tells and bed time stories as consistent explanations, so be it.

I feel much better thinking how wonderful the universe is, trying to understand what little I can of it, and keeping supersticion and churches outside of my life.