Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[BrainBlow]

Atheism= Absence of belief in the supernatural.

 

That is all. Nothing more. It is to religion and philosophy what "not collecting stamps" is to hobbies.

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

This is simply OBJECTIVELY wrong. All of it.

1. We DO have a fossil record that CLEARLY shows transition. It is right freaking there!

It is just a regurgitated (and luckily dying) argument.

 

2. First of all, there is no citation to these "10 000", which doesn't really even MATTER, since usually, the people making these claims point to scientists who have their fields of study on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT fields of science, meaning it is nothing but an appeal to authority(logical fallacy). And 85% believe in god?

Depends on where you are referring to, but that, again, doesn't matter. Why? Because Evolution doesn't, and isn't trying to, replace god.

MOST people who believe in Evolution ARE in fact Theists! Belief in God=/= Creationism.

 

3. There is absolutely nothing about "chance", and the whole argument is based on poor understanding. Evolution DOESN'T talk about chance AT ALL! This is a complete fallacy and shows utter incompetence in the field.

 

4. The laws of thermodynamics DON'T contradict Evolution. This is also based on an utter lack of understanding.

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind."

Creationists argue that this means Evolution cannot be true, and that there is in fact increased disorder.

Wrong. The increasing order in Evolution is caused by the decreasing order in the sun.

Creationists fail to realize that the earth is NOT a closed system, and thatthe sun is a part of our system.

 

5. Argument from ignorance, which is pretty much what ID bases itself on.

Scientists, by the way, have no problem figuring out how eyes evolved.

To put it childishly simple and easy to understand:

 

6. Again an argument from Ignorance. The Cambrian Explosion simply describes a point of time(lasting millions of years, not "a few years" like creationists like to believe) with a rapid diversion of species. It was simply around the time when the rather simple life forms of earth started their arms race seriously.

By the way, all creatures during the Cambrian explosion were SEA BASED.

 

 

WHY is Evolution being discussed here anyways?

Evolution=/=Atheism.

[danielsangeo]

Atheism= Absence of belief in the supernatural.

 

Let me take issue here. Atheism is not the absence of belief in the supernatural because "theism" is not the belief in the supernatural (not sure what word that would be..anyone know any Latin? ). Atheism is solely the absence of belief in a deity.

 

Atheists can surely believe in other supernatural elements, though....Ghosts, reincarnation, vampires, werewolves...that sort of thing.

[Scorpia]

im agnostic. i wont say your belief is bullshit i wont say mine is the definitive truth. i just think people need a reason for everything. the thought of me dying and not going anywhere, just wondering what the hell would happen had been the main antagonist in a depression i suffered awhile back. i will happily and unbiasly speak with you about your beliefs. if i found out there was a god through some enlightenment i dont know if i could worship him; for reasons i dont really understand i dont know if i could worship him its as simple as that. some religious people however get under my skin for the sole reason that they will tell you what to believe in and are absolutely uninterested in entertaining the idea that your beliefs are valid or that your god is real, the amount of audacity people have surprises and enrages me. oh and people who say "ill pray for you" after i tell them i dont believe in their god just pisses me off.

 

sorry i didn't construct this to well, but i felt it was best said as i would lay it out to you if this conversation had been brought up. any questions (mostly to clear things up) please ask.