The Anti-Science of Atheism

The Anti-Science of Atheism

You might believe, and you surely have a right to expect, that given the self-aggrandizing pronouncements of atheists as being their own intellectual, rational, and moral gift to the otherwise ignorant and sinful world, atheists would be the progenitors of brilliant discoveries, findings, books, papers, inventions, and numerous Nobel Prizes. You might expect that atheists have founded some of the greatest institutions of higher learning, healing, goodness and mercy. You might expect all of these and much more from the godless group that claims to know so much more than believers in that ancient book of myths, as they call the Holy Bible, but of course quite the opposite is true. No atheist colleges. No atheist hospitals. No atheist charitable organizations of any kind whatsoever. They even give less money, time, and blood to secular institutions, family, and friends than do those people of faith they so eagerly ridicule. How disappointing this is after all of the boasts, brags and claims of atheists, particularly if you are one of them. There are so many more citations that could be presented here, but to quote atheist Richard Dawkins, that would simply be "multiplying up examples." I suggest that readers here who are not atheists provide additional examples of the anti-science of atheism.

“Valid criticism does you a favor.” – Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), Demon Haunted World, page 32

The late Carl Sagan had a good point. We can and should learn from critics. But what of invalid criticism?
Everyone has heard atheists parrot their claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive, it’s either one or the other. About that, Carl Sagan had this to say:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality." - Demon Haunted World, page 29
“The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” - Ibid, p 29, 30
“There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant roles, and each needs the other.” - Ibid, page 277

Incidentally, any Christian who comments in this manner is quickly mocked and ridiculed by atheists:
“the grandeur, magnificence, subtlety, and intricacy of the universe revealed by science.”
This, atheists call the “argument from incredulity.” And then they chuckle and snort derisively. But Carl Sagan wrote:
“No contemporary religion and no New Age belief seems to me to take sufficient account of the grandeur, magnificence, subtlety, and intricacy of the universe revealed by science.” – Ibid, page 35

More incredulity from Carl Sagan: “Nature is always more subtle, more intricate, more elegant than what we are able to imagine.” – Ibid, page 330

From Carl Sagan, who was an astronomer and popular television figure, we go to physicist, Michio Kaku, also a television figure.
“Universes are for free. A universe is a free lunch.” – Michio Kaku, physicist
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.” – Stephen Hawking (www.brainyquote.com)
“The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensions of hyperspace. That is the mind of God.” – Michio Kaku, www.scienceworldreport.com, June 13, 2016

There is not the slightest empirical scientific evidence for something creating itself from nothing, nor for eleven dimensions of “hyperspace,” whatever that is supposed to be.

“Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.” – Stephen Hawking, Ibid

There is not the slightest empirical evidence for multiverse(s), i.e. an infinite number of universes, and, by the way, we just happen to be in the “right one” (wink, nudge). Fifty years ago, atheists asserted that the universe was too large, too wasteful for God to have bothered with. That passed for science then. It has since eclipsed itself in the silly department. One universe is too small, too simple, far too anthropic. We now need the “multiverse(s)”. Sometimes it is singular, sometimes it is plural. Science is complex that way.

Richard Dawkins, militant atheist and incidentally, evolutionary biologist

“I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” – Blind Watchmaker, page 46

It simply does not get any more anti-intellectual than this. Dawkins himself defines “impossible” as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. A typewriter has more than 80 different characters, counting punctuation, upper case, and numbers. 1/80 x 1/80… fifty times = 1 chance in 10 to the 95th power, utterly impossible for even a short sentence.

“An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.” – Ibid, page 81

Many people all over the world are blind despite having far more than 5% of an eye.

“ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.” – Ibid, page 160

Marble statues waving, and cows jumping over the moon. “It could happen”! It’s just anti-science.

“A1>A2. B1>B2" – Ibid, page 171

Alphabetology is not science. It’s Dawkins.

Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”. – Ibid, page 230

Hatred is petty, anti-scientific, counterproductive and unintelligent.

“ . . .naive Bible thumper” – Ibid, page 316 “Redneck creationism” – page 251

“Mutations can be reversed (‘back mutations’). For most genes, mutation in either direction is equally probable.” - Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable, page 80

Mark well Dawkins’ claims – “mutations can be reversed” – they’re “equally probable.”
He soon contradicts himself.

“There can be no going downhill - species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better.” – page 91
“It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” – page 132
“To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.” – page 134

“An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”- Ibid, page 289

Yes, an elephant is just one big infection, isn’t it. Brilliant, truly.

“Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane.” – Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion

Victor Stenger, militant atheist, physicist

“We will become God” – Not by Design, page 179, chapter title

There is no God, but we will become him. “Science”? No. Atheist arrogance carried to its extreme.
“. . . the big Bang is not some highly improbable miracle but just the way the dice fell." – page 159
Lots of dice fell in all of the multiverses, with 11 dimensions of hyperspace…. Pop quiz to follow.

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate

 

And yet, Not a single shred of evidence for the existence of any "god."

 

The OP is more DISHONEST Quote Mining, to try and maker Bogus points.
He is INCAPABLE OF DISCUSSION, only Grandstanding with his 'own' OP's..
which themselves are OUT of Context quote-mining.

The OP is his usual Propaganda/SPAM/Headlining, and he's INCAPABLE of participating in Discussion. He has FIFTY Posters who've refuted him on 'Ignore'.
Instead he BLOGS up BS headlines/PAINTS the section.
`

 

Once again, for those with a learning disability, being an atheist means only that one does not believe in god.

Any other attributes assigned by others are simply BS.

The OP has had this explained to him multiple times but insists that only he knows what is true.

 

No, the "argument from incredulity" would be to take Sagan's statement as an indication that there is a God - a step Sagan did NOT take.

You are still guilty of "argument from incredulity".

And, Sagan is not.

 

On Kiva one of the biggest lending groups are Atheists, Agnostics and I'm a member of it and we also give money even if limited to specific fund raising options. In my case I believe since we have an organized and ordered government they should be the main source of direct help to those in need such as my SNAP, SSI, Medicaid and my county lets me get monthly bus passes for around a third the normal price due to low income. These are far better help than charity wound provide and vetted to make sure I get the help I need. But I also used money from gifts given to me to fund a $500 Kiva account to lend money in my group to needy people around the world which they pay back and then I can re-lend the sum again the charity getting the interest earnings. But get many of us pooled we can give to these men and women direct and real help that lets them better their lives long term hopefully.

 

Yes, and I suspect accuracy problems with a lot of the accounting for donations.

If some group wants to fund a meeting place based on religion, that's fine. But, it makes no sense to compare that to the fact that very few atheists donate money to build buildings and hire staff purely to celebrate the absence of a god.

And, we need organizations that are large enough to actually cover the USA without regard to religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

I just don't see any religious group coming anywhere CLOSE to meeting the needs that exist.

 

After reading several books by Carl Sagan, I wrote to Sagan's publisher, citing chapter and verse where he made egregious errors. I also pointed out his left-wing bias, which has no place in any science book. The publisher forwarded my letter to Sagan, and one might expect a well-known if not world class scientist to reply in a professional manner. But unfortunately Sagan's greed and politics shoved any scientific inclinations to the side.

Carl Sagan replied to me by letter, and he simply asked me to purchase his newest book. He completely ignored a long list of "valid criticisms" which he had acknowledged did him "a favor."

Richard Dawkins, not surprisingly, was much worse. He ignored the entire text of his ignorance in print, and instead simply called me names, chiefly "stupid," via multiple e-mails.

Now if these two scientists can't respond maturely and professionally to criticism of their own books, obviously the petty Leftists frequenting internet forums won't do any better. I don't put anyone on my Ignore List until they have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to think and debate. Life is too short for childish slapfights.

Capri has done an admirable job, but unfortunately there are too many of them, and they keep moving the target, changing the subject, and all the while, hatefully, condescendingly impugning anyone with a different opinion.

"You stupid people think you know everything." - Isaac Asimov, in a postcard to me

 

Dawkins is a nutjob, most likely a result of being sexually molested as a child. He knows little about logic, as clearly demonstrated in his silly and inept attempts at refuting Aquinas proved, and yes, he contradicts himself constantly. I used to be a 'regular' at infidels.org, and what was once a decent haven for genuine discussion has since been destroyed by that loon and his little cult of emotionally retarded deviants and neurotics. And it is indeed a cult, make no mistake about that.

 

Nothing stopping atheists from forming 501's and running charities. Of course few would donate to one, seeing as how enthralled they are with 'Darwinism', especially social Darwinism. It's true religious charities always fall short; that's because they've always been a minority, and the donor base isn't wealthy to begin with. Compared to atheist donations, though, it's a tsunami sized wave. Remove the government restrictions on funding religious organizations via grants, and things improve substantially. their networks and volunteer groups are already in place, and know their local neighborhoods a lot better than some guy with an office in D.C. or the state capital, and they know the food warehouses and companies that will offer discounts and freebies already, too. I haul an average of 8 52' trailers a month around to various food banks here, and these people do a fine job with what they have, which isn't much.

 

OP totally misrepresents Sagan. An atheist's definition of "spirituality" is very different from a religious person's definition. For an atheist, looking at the grandeur of a starry night sky is a "spiritual" experience in the sense that it's awe-inspiring and grand. Carl Sagan spoke extensively on this, and you do his memory a great disservice.

Oh, and FYI: Atheism is merely the unwillingness to believe in something without evidence. I'll stop being an atheist when you provide evidence for theism. Deal?

 

1. Everyone is an atheist towards the gods they don't believe in. Since all Christians are atheists towards Ahura Mazda, all Christian charities can be considered "atheist charities."

2. Atheism is not an organization or a belief system. You won't find "atheist charities" or "fact-based-worldview charities" or whatever. What you will find is atheists who volunteer their time in various charities--including religious ones.

3. Who has the moral high ground: the atheist who does a good deed and expects nothing in return, or the religious guy who does good because he expects a heavenly reward?

 

Aquinas? Lol. Aquinas is so old hat. Philosophy has made great strides in the last . . . eight centuries.

 

It is illogical to claim that science is limited to atheist just as it is illogical to claim that only those who believe in God can be moral. I think that most atheists and theists reject such binary extremes.

 

Asimov spent decades fielding the same retarded questions by a million faceless drones. It's not that you've stumped him (or Sagan or Dawkins). It's just that they're tired of the same old song.

 

And, for an additional $.02, the OP will tell you why you and I aren't "true atheists."

 

Say YOU, in the "same old song" - attacking me, instead of responding to the points made.

Why don't YOU answer for Dead Asimov then. It should be a cinch.
1. Isaac Asimov prayed to God to pass a science test. When he failed, he renounced God and became an atheist.
Respond as to how *intellectual* and *rational* Asimov was in so doing.

2. Asimov feared flying and never took commercial aviation.
Respond as to how *intellectual* and *rational* Asimov was in so doing. Please.

3. Asimov ignored his only son, and cloistered himself in his study, where he typed relentlessly, producing book after book for his adoring fans, who made him filthy rich, but always looking like something of a bum.
Respond as to how *intellectual* and *rational* Asimov was in neglecting his son, who became a collector of pedophilia, and was arrested for thousands of illegal photos of nude children on his computer.

4. "If the tube is long enough and wide enough, all the exhaled air remains in that long tube and you will breathe the same air over and over again and it will not be long before you suffocate (underwater)". - Counting the Eons, by Isaac Asimov, page 12
Respond as to how *intellectual* and *rational Asimov was in making the ignorant claim above, given the fact that:
A. An 18 inch long snorkel is sufficiently long that you cannot inhale in the vertical position, such is the hydrostatic pressure on your chest. So his claim fails for that reason.
B. But if his claim did not fail for that reason, it fails because you could inhale through your mouth, and exhale through your nose.
Not much of a thinker, that Isaac, though he blathered that he was.

5. ". . . there is an object a mile above the surface of the earth that is moving upward at a constant speed. We can tell when it started its journey . . . there is nothing in the upward direction to stop, we could conclude that it would travel forever and its journey would have no end." - page 150
Respond as to how *intellectual* and *rational* Isaac Asimov failed to take into account gravity AND air resistance, in his claim that "an object... is moving upward at a constant speed."
Incidentally, Asimov also neglected to consider the sun's position and gravity in preventing this "travel forever" and "journey (with) no end." Scientific protocols always include limiting assumptions, which Isaac completely overlooked.

I might continue with Sagan's and Dawkins' ignorati, of which I have recorded many, many more than those of Isaac. But I won't bother if you can't give even a half-cocked (to use one of Dawkins' words) account of yourself in responding. I'm not the subject. Asimov's book is. Try to stay on that subject, huh?

 

But you already knew that. Put another way, how could you possibly be surprised?

Other than alerting lurkers and other posters to the OP's Creationist Nonsense™ (which most can figure out for themselves anyway on one simple reading), why waste the time with such rubbish? Indeed, let the OP spew his gibberish. It only supports the rational conclusion that nutters are nutters. Think about it, who would possibly buy into such abject baloney? Why take partial owenrship of someone's else intellectual bankruptcy?

 

Yes, you play word games just as Sagan and all godless Leftists do. Rhetoric is not reason, however. Funny to read anything by a Leftist whining about "a great disservice" when that constitutes virtually the entirety of your discussions.

You atheists deny books full of evidence. Sir Anthony Flew, the world's most famous atheist, finally capitulated to the "evidence."
He is no doubt a good deal smarter, more learned, more honest than you will ever be. So did Lee Strobel. And C.S. Lewis. And....

 

Your argument assumes that you only try once. The Shakespeare argument specifically states that you keep trying for "enough time". One estimate (assuming 44 keys on a keyboard, 100.000 characters in Hamlet) says you would have to try 10^(164000) times to get it right. If you take enough time to test it that many times, you will have an order of 50% to get it right, much more than one chance in 10^40. The phrasing of the thought experiment makes the issue one of very large time instead of very small probability.

The point is that you don't need fully developed eyes to benefit from vision, even if you don't get as good vision as you might with a full eye. An animal with a proto-retina will be able to benefit from it, and that is not at all discredited by the fact that human eyes are more complex and rely on smaller parts.

I'm not convinced the definition of impossible being less than 1 in 10^40 is in effect here. About the the time required he says "The number is so large that the entire age of the universe so far is too short a time to write out all the noughts!".

These are different statements, they don't seem to me to contradict each other. For these purposes, we can consider the machinery of evolution to take place in two stages in each individual animal. First, there is mutation (changes in the DNA), then there is natural selection (the death of those whose mutations are bad). Mutations can go either way, but natural selection kills those who go in an unfavourable direction.

 

I always get a thrill when someone who knows nothing about me except what I tell them what my beliefs and motivations truly are. The ego of theism and the arrogance of one who can't stand that someone does not believe what they think.

 

I wanted to add all those religious charities that do "good" are also fronts for religions to manipulate the ones getting the support to join their brand of religion, in most cases, I was in a religious nursing home for a month of skilled care and I got hounded all the time by religious nurses, doctors, chaplains and ministers to hear the good word even though I told them I was an Atheist. Because at the time I had no Medicaid or support I had to suck it up. I finally went to a "chapel service" and told them exactly what I thought about their god, using my Skeptics Annotated Bible and some choice "good morality in the book" and then explains the stupidity of the Jesus Narrative as a critical thinker that this god could just (f-bomb) forgive man and well it was moronic to believe the narrative with ZERO evidence much of the story could have happened. Half the poor people in the room had various dementias so wouldn't be able to understand the chapel service or anything going on and the rest were so brainwashed into the cult they wouldn't accept a simple and honest criticism but I blamed the ministry religious industrial complex for that they damaged them as children and it stuck. Then I told the ministers to get a real job but they clearly find religion an easy racket people give them money for doing nothing at least the staff on-call psychiatrist had a real degree and could counsel people but even that was through god-lenses not scientific principles.

They got on me more after that but then I filed a complaint with the State Office for violation of my first amendment rights as a non-theist to not be harassed for my beliefs. After they warned them with a big fine they backed off.

An example of a non-profit charitable institution run by a religious organization, the government is the one who should be covering such things not charities, its not the only time I got "help" with a big dose of indoctrination.

 

Note how ChemEngineer does not understand probability.

 

Swensson, you do not understand probability. I didn't "ASSUME" anything, as you claimed. The probability stands as I stated.
You can try as long as you like. Each time, the probability is impossible. 10 to the 164,000 is so ridiculous I'm surprised you even brought it up. You have NO IDEA of the number of fundamental particles in the universe. It is *ONLY* 10 to the 90th power.
So there isn't enough paper to keep putting in your monkey's typewriter. There isn't enough ink ribbon. The earth will have long since become a cold, dead rock. But you pretend the monkey keeps typing on....

Finally, Hamlet is NOT,, repeat NOT "all the works of Shakespeare," as cited by hateful Dawkins.

Who has "5% of an eye" and can "see"? Name them.

Argue with Dawkins. I accept a far more stringent definition of 1 in 10^50th. That many grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Remember that quantity next time you gaze on a long beach or a huge sandy desert.

Clearly you don't understand mutations nor natural selection. You just like to argue to support your politically motivated narrative.
I'm more interested in science than your politics.

 

I noted how you are unable to cite anything specific, but can only generalize in your usual condescending, ignorant tone.


As a lesson for others reading this, not that it can possibly help sdelsolray, probabilities are generally stated in terms of "1 chance in x." For example, the probability of tossing tails with a fair coin is, we would say, 1 chance in 2. Maybe even sdelsolray can comprehend that. I don't know.

But 1 chance in 2 does NOT mean "You ASSUME you only toss it one time." It's just 1 out of 2, this throw or the next, or the next, whether slow or fast. P does not change, as Dawkins and his fawning followers pretend.