The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Fatihah]

DNA is the answer to your question. It is a complex pattern that repeats itself and it is designed without any intelligent involvement whatsoever.

DNA is the answer. Unfortunately, as you have already clearly demonstrated in this thread (and others) it isn't an answer you'll accept. Thus, you're inability to accept a logical answer or produce a rational challenge is clear evidence that your argument is a farce.

Response: DNA can not be an answer to how something is done. DNA can't be performed, so it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. It's not a verb. Another example of the severely flawed logic by some atheists, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

 

[DarkSun]

Response: If there is no proof of intelligent design, then you should be able to provide an answer to how a pattern which repeats itself can be designed without intelligence. You have no logical answer. No one does, because there is none. Thus your non-answer alone is evidence which supports the proof of intelligent design.

Are you referring to our genetic information and how we all seem have the same basic components therein? If so, the logical answer to that is that we all descended from a common anscestor. Whether you believe that an Intelligent Designer was involved in this is up to you - but it most definitely isn't science. Just because there is a repeating pattern doesn't necessarily prove that there was a Designer.

But personally, I think there is. I can't imagine there not being one. However, that doesn't change the fact that I can't empiraclly prove this viewpoint, so it isn't a scientific belief. It's a personal one.

Does that make any more sense?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: DNA can not be an answer to how something is done. DNA can't be performed, so it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. It's not a verb. Another example of the severely flawed logic by some atheists, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

Careful. You're gonna hurt your back if you keep moving that goalpost.

 

[DarkSun]

Response: DNA can not be an answer to how something is done. DNA can't be performed, so it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. It's not a verb. Another example of the severely flawed logic by some atheists, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

Just a question.
Could you please explain to me your understanding of Abiogenesis Theory?

 

[Fatihah]

Are you referring to our genetic information and how we all seem have the same basic components therein? If so, the logical answer to that is that we all descended from a common anscestor. Whether you believe that an Intelligent Designer was involved in this is up to you - but it most definitely isn't science. Just because there is a repeating pattern doesn't necessarily prove that there was a Designer.

But personally, I think there is. I can't imagine there not being one. However, that doesn't change the fact that I can't empiraclly prove this viewpoint, so it isn't a scientific belief. It's a personal one.

Does that make any more sense?

Response: To some extent. You would have to elaborate more on why you say that a pattern designed to repeat itself is not proof that it was designed by intelligence.

 

[nrg]

Response: Thus you've pointed out your problem from the start. You modified what I said, then responded. Thus your whole argument is flawed to begin with and refutes nothing, because you admitted, you're responding to your own modification, not my actual statement.

Ok, could you please explain through reasoning how my modification of your statement, wich I did to summarize your original argument, makes it a different argument?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: DNA can not be an answer to how something is done. DNA can't be performed, so it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. It's not a verb. Another example of the severely flawed logic by some atheists, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

One other thing, the highlighted portion is a non-sequitur.

DNA is the how answer, especially during our earliest developmental stages. DNA is the blueprint. It contains all of the genetic information and instructions necessary for building a living thing. In the earliest stages of life, DNA tells the embryo how to assemble itself (for lack of a better term). This process is known as "embryogenesis" and it is governed entirely by the genetic instructions contained in DNA, half of which comes from the mother, the other half from the father. When these two halves of the gene sequence are united, the process begins (in species with two sexes. In species that reproduce asexually, the entire genetic code comes from the mother but the process is largely the same). Without DNA, life would be impossible.

Response: If there is no proof of intelligent design, then you should be able to provide an answer to how a pattern which repeats itself can be designed without intelligence. You have no logical answer. No one does, because there is none. Thus your non-answer alone is evidence which supports the proof of intelligent design.

DNA is still the answer. It is a complex pattern that repeats itself and it is designed without any intelligent involvement. DNA is also the how answer. It is the answer to how a living thing is made.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Another one of your answers, in an attempt to distract from the clear fact that you have no logical answer to the questions posed in the Opening Post. It's amazing how you can participate on threads, and do nothing but run the whole time.

When I pointed out to you that your questions were logical fallacies, I made the mistake of thinking that you were smart enough to follow along. I had hoped that you would be honest enough to admit your mistakes, and then reword your loaded questions. Sadly, you've shown your inability to understand the concepts of logic, and absolutely no intention of cleaning up your post.
I highly doubt that anyone involved in this thread is surprised at your actions.

... but you amazing like the exposure.

What a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand and comprehend English. You really are too much.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Newsflash - If you don't want me to address you, then don't address me, or my religion. Very simple.

Newsflash back at you: You don't set the forum rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Response: Doesn't answer the OP.

Response: Likewise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Well, as far as where our experiences derive from, the question I think you are getting at is whether our mental experience comes from the brain, or from a "soul" which is some non-physical entity separate from the brain. This is the issue of dualism vs. monism and it has been a philosophical issue for centuries. Dualism says the mind derives from a soul, monism says it derives from the brain. Dualism is the idea easiest for us to imagine and accept, children for example naturally believe their minds exist "out there" somewhere disconnected from the rest of the physical world (a non-physical world which is also populated by all the things children, and often adults, imagine).

It's worth pointing out that dualism vs. monism has been a philosophical issue for centuries, but has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of God. It's also not a contradiction for an atheist to accept the existence of mental experiences. This is because evidence is acquired through experience, and sight is only one possible experience. An emotion may be a less reliable experience than sight for acquiring information about the external world, but OTOH it can be quite reliable in assessing the internal state of the brain, and it can be corroborated by evidence from an MRI or similar brain scan. The fact that you cannot "see" an emotion directly is also not a problem for an atheist if the word is understood as a label for a lot of complex phenomena (i.e., patterns of neurons firing in the brain and associated stimuli). For example, you can't "see" courage, or economics, specific examples of courage may exist but "courage" by itself doesn't, that's because the words are just labels for abstract features which allow us to group real things together, and simplify our complex world. There IS an interesting philosophical issue concerning what experiences are "made out of", which I'll get to in a moment, but it's not simply a matter of not being able to "see" the thing itself. That's not a problem any more than "courage" or "economics" is a problem.

Back to dualism vs. monism: the evidence and observations accumulated in the field of neuroscience over the last century has lead almost all researchers to accept monism. For example, you don't feel emotions when you are unconscious. Why? If emotions derived from the soul, why would it matter that someone hit me in the head with a baseball bat? If emotions derive from the soul, not the brain, why would dopamine levels in the brain cause a change in your emotions? Why is it that people who have had the left and right hemispheres of the brain separated (so-called split-brain patients) become, to a remarkable degree, effectively two different people inhabiting the same body? Why is damage to the frontal cortex associated with personality changes, to the extent that a man injured in this part of the brain no longer considers *himself* "the same person" and his own wife barely recognizes him as the same person? All of this and other evidence is consistent with monism, and none of the evidence implies the existence of a non-physical "soul" which is separate from the brain. Even the idea that the brain is a sort of "receiver" for the transmission coming form the soul is not consistent with any evidence. That's because this would mean nerves would have to fire (for example) when receiving the transmission, which would be visible to us in this world as the spontaneous firing of neurons with no physical stimulus, in violation of the most basic laws of physics (i.e. conservation of matter and energy). Nothing like this has been observed.

Instead of asking where our experiences are derived from, which has been settled by the evidence, I think the more challenging question you should be asking is: what are our experiences made out of? Let's suppose emotions and experiences are the products of the brain. The brain is made out of cells and so forth. What is "fear" made out of? I think this issue comes down partly to the labeling issue I mentioned (what is "economics" made out of?) And I think it partly comes down to the fact that our internal reality is ultimately an illusion, which may correspond more or less accurately to reality. Even what we *think* we experience can be an illusion. When you look at an expansive vista, you *think* you are seeing all the mountains and clouds in one image, but we know from experiments that in fact you are only seeing a small area in the center of your vision field in any detail at any time, and your eye darts around collecting information about different parts of the image. We are convinced that "experiences" are things which populate the world, they seem real to us, but OTOH we would have this conviction if our brains were wired a certain way and we were unable to rewire them. I think that's essentially what's happening, it's a lot like quantum mechanics or relativity in physics, our brains didn't evolve the most intuitive tools to tackle this issue.

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design.

Maybe it's better to leave that for another thread. For the record, many scientists who also happen to be theists do not accept intelligent design, and lack of intelligent design does not = chance alone. Is it "chance" that the planets move in elliptical orbits, instead of square or triangular orbits? No. If we could press "pause" on the universe, rearrange everything, and press "play" again, objects would still have elliptical orbits. Objects have elliptical orbits not by chance or by design, but as a consequence of the laws of physics.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Response: DNA can not be an answer to how something is done. DNA can't be performed, so it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. It's not a verb. Another example of the severely flawed logic by some atheists, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

Response: The universe can't be performed, it just is. Universe isn't a verb... So it can't possibly be an answer to "how" something is done. Another example of severely flawed logic by Fatihah, as your answer clearly demonstrates.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

So far, atheists have acknowledged that emotions can not be seen, but acknowledge that they exists, thus demonstrating that one does not have to see something as proof that it exists. Thus the ability not to see Allah(God) is not proof that Allah(God) doesn't exist.

You can't see air either, yet you are able to breathe. You know air exists. How? When a wind blows, you see its effect. Similarly, when we feel emotions, we see electrical impulses in the brain which lights up certain areas of the brain in an MRI scan. You do not need to see something in order to prove it exists. Cause and effect is also a good method to prove something exists.
However, you cannot say the same for god. There is no objective effect caused by god to observe him/it.

 

[Walkntune]

You can't see air either, yet you are able to breathe. You know air exists. How? When a wind blows, you see its effect. Similarly, when we feel emotions, we see electrical impulses in the brain which lights up certain areas of the brain in an MRI scan. You do not need to see something in order to prove it exists. Cause and effect is also a good method to prove something exists.
However, you cannot say the same for god. There is no objective effect caused by god to observe him/it.

Emotions are more than chemical reactions.They are an energy that comes into the body.
This is why when people get mad they have tantrums and hit things to expel the energy.
People also have nervous habits(leg shakes etc..) which is the body using up and ridding itself of energy that doesn't belong and is trapped. Feelings are caused by energy that we allow into the body.
Don't let science blind common sense.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Emotions are more than chemical reactions.They are an energy that comes into the body.
This is why when people get mad they have tantrums and hit things to expel the energy.
People also have nervous habits(leg shakes etc..) which is the body using up and ridding itself of energy that doesn't belong and is trapped. Feelings are caused by energy that we allow into the body.
Don't let science blind common sense.

The point is that we can see this "energy" on an MRI scan, it's something concrete that we know is there. The same can't be said for God, no matter how much people would like to believe it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Don't let science blind common sense.

Yes, obviously it's those pesky body thetans causing those magical emotion-things! Appealing to biology is just a ploy those evil evolutionists are using to draw us away from god! duh!

Imagine, in this day and age, people NOT believing in emotion fairys randomly zapping people with their emotion wands. Science...pshhaw.

 

[Walkntune]

Yes, obviously it's those pesky body thetans causing those magical emotion-things! Appealing to biology is just a ploy those evil evolutionists are using to draw us away from god! duh!

Imagine, in this day and age, people NOT believing in emotion fairys randomly zapping people with their emotion wands. Science...pshhaw.

I would rather be open to reality then to be limited to any one particular method.The more tools you bring to the job the better.

 

[Fatihah]

When I pointed out to you that your questions were logical fallacies, I made the mistake of thinking that you were smart enough to follow along. I had hoped that you would be honest enough to admit your mistakes, and then reword your loaded questions. Sadly, you've shown your inability to understand the concepts of logic, and absolutely no intention of cleaning up your post.
I highly doubt that anyone involved in this thread is surprised at your actions.


What a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand and comprehend English. You really are too much.

Response: Likewise.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Fati, you do more to defame the reputation of islam than a hundred like myself ever could. For that I salute you.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Likewise.

Response: Double likewise.