The Atheist Delusion

[Earthling]

You've got to ask yourself: what the devil are you talking about?

It's discussed in the video.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what you mean. I used to love watching nature documentaries, but I stopped watching them because everyone seems to think it absolutely necessary to mention evolution to explain everything. Over and over and over.

That is because what you saw was the result of evolution. Why does reality bother you so much?

You've got to ask yourself, complexity aside, when they developed a heart or blood first. Why would one develop without the other?

An argument from ignorance. Why don't you find out how the circulatory system evolved?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point. Then he starts talking about Hell. Pity.

Ray Comfort is a joke, so didn't watch it. He doesn't even understand basic logic, and thinks that the statement "All whales are mammals" is equivalent to the statement "All mammals are whales."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I kind of got that impression as well. His theology is certainly nonsense. I liked watching the atheists, though, as they face the nonsensical nature of their position. And Dawkins trying to define nothing, his surprise at being laughed at. It's unfortunate, at the end, though, when so many of the atheists interviewed bought into his nonsensical theology. They may never know the truth.

Please, you know that there is nothing nonsensical about the atheist position. You know that you can't debate against it.

 

[Earthling]

The book is ID trash par excellence. The science of evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism, objective verifiable evidence, and the good sound work of virtually all scientists 98%+ of many different religious beliefs. The science of evolution is not based on atheism.

The few scientists that advocate 'Intelligent Design' have not been able to propose a theory nor hypothesis that can be tested with scientific methods.

And this has always struck me as odd. When I see someone talking about evolution, like a teacher, for example, to me it is obvious that they are repeating something they were told that someone made up. It's always changing and so never really true, fact, accurate . . . so why couldn't an intelligent design scientist do the same? Because they would be fired immediately, is one possible answer, but that shouldn't deter them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I kind of got that impression as well. His theology is certainly nonsense. I liked watching the atheists, though, as they face the nonsensical nature of their position. And Dawkins trying to define nothing, his surprise at being laughed at. It's unfortunate, at the end, though, when so many of the atheists interviewed bought into his nonsensical theology. They may never know the truth.

Ray goes for impulse responses. He avoids debates where preparation and research is involved prior to an argument.

Personally I would love to see Ray comfort in a debate regarding reverse engineering of organic and inorganic systems.

That the things that he says are designed are in reality a combination of various chemical interactions leading up to a result. If you reverse anything to its source you got a better understanding of the actual truth of the matter.

A little understanding of molecular chemistry would pretty much put the brakes on Comforts idea of intelligent design . Especially when complex systems are reduced to their fundamental parts and how they interact with each other that made the complex system in the first place.

Ray focuses on stable systems to make his argument. He ignores destabilization of which all systems eventually breakdown which result in various substances and materials being formed by which those substances and materials themselves break down and reform continually reacting and producing countless variations.

If he can point out where intelligent design falls into any of it, he might have an argument. He doesn't.

He also ignores the fact that atheism isn't a belief system or point of view. He's dissing himself if he thinks he himself wasn't at the onset of life, which in turn makes him look pretty silly as an adult asserting intelligent design.

 

[siti]

It's discussed in the video.

What a relief - for a minute there I thought we had an RF poster capable of composing such nonsense by themselves.

Anyway - if you know anything about biology - you will know that blood is not the only kind of circulatory system - even plants have extensive vascular systems to transport nutrients etc. to cells in different parts of the organism...and circulatory systems have various functions some of which don't necessarily require "blood" as we know it in humans (and other vertebrates) today. Circulation of oxygen, nutrients, waste products, lymphocytes, hormones...with or without a beating heart...there is a huge variety of ways that living organisms have found to achieve all these requirements...and of course they are all evolving side by side - not in sequence. That kind of question just betrays complete ignorance of either biology or evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

And this has always struck me as odd. When I see someone talking about evolution, like a teacher, for example, to me it is obvious that they are repeating something they were told that someone made up. It's always changing and so never really true, fact, accurate . . . so why couldn't an intelligent design scientist do the same? Because they would be fired immediately, is one possible answer, but that shouldn't deter them.

The science of evolution is not 'made up,' nor are they told scientists 'made it up,'. but the mythology of Genesis is made up by ancient cultures, without the benefit of science, to describe their belief in the cosmos. The knowledge of the science of evolution does change over time, but in a positive way reinforcing the theories and hypothesis supporting the science,

It is a matter of objective verifiable evidence to support theories and hypothesis. Creation scientist have not come up with this criteria of scientific methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An example of how he edited people that he interviewed in an attempt to make others think poorly of them:

 

[LuisDantas]

From the time I posted the video to the time you responded leaves you very little time to have watched much of it. The interviewer explains that the evidence is given to us. We know it. Atheists deny what they know for their own desires. Accountability.

Uh, seriously? Do you actually believe in that what you are saying above?

Because that could not be further from the truth.

 

[Earthling]

Uh, seriously? Do you actually believe in that what you are saying above?

Because that could not be further from the truth.

Uh-huh.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point. Then he starts talking about Hell. Pity.

Jer 31:33 I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

Our job is to work out our own salvation. If we love others as ourselves there is nothing more we can do.

 

[Windwalker]

I know what you mean. I used to love watching nature documentaries, but I stopped watching them because everyone seems to think it absolutely necessary to mention evolution to explain everything. Over and over and over.

I think the reason they mention evolution over and over and over, is because people apparently don't understand it very well, as is evidenced by your second question here:

You've got to ask yourself, complexity aside, when they developed a heart or blood first. Why would one develop without the other?

 

[Altfish]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions. Like they've been indoctrinated up to a point which they accept and they are lost beyond that simple point. Then he starts talking about Hell. Pity.

Before you ask, yes I have watched it. It is painful.

May I now ask you to watch...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You've got to ask yourself, complexity aside, when they developed a heart or blood first. Why would one develop without the other?

The heart is one way to circulate nutrients around the body, but less complex systems commonly used to other means.

 

[Altfish]

And this has always struck me as odd. When I see someone talking about evolution, like a teacher, for example, to me it is obvious that they are repeating something they were told that someone made up. It's always changing and so never really true, fact, accurate . . . so why couldn't an intelligent design scientist do the same? Because they would be fired immediately, is one possible answer, but that shouldn't deter them.

Oh dear.
Not only do you not understand evolution, you don't understand science either.
Of course science is always changing, we discover new things, it is not based on dogma.
When I was born we had steam trains running main line services, we used logarithm tables to calculate with, TVs were black and white. Mobile phones and laptops/tablets hadn't been thought of.

If someone could write a paper on Intelligent Design that stood up to scrutiny and peer review there would be fame and fortune awaiting the author. It's not been done and I'm not holding my breath because so far all attempts to justify ID has been debunked easily. Science doesn't explain gaps in its knowledge with "God did it", it says, "We don't know, but are working on it"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Atheists deny what they know for their own desires. Accountability.

Which is about as salient and convincing as saying theists (traditional usage of the term) deny what they know for their own desires. They want immortality and cosmic meaning because then they don't have to make difficult choices and really consider the consequences of their actions all on their own.

Which is to say, not salient or convincing at all.

 

[blü 2]

It's sort of enlightening watching these atheist pressed for answers with simple questions.

If you're interested in answers, set out the simple questions you'd like nonbelievers to answer, and I'm sure you'll get a reasonable and helpful response.

 

[Earthling]

Before you ask, yes I have watched it. It is painful.

May I now ask you to watch...

I'm not watching the first two, I hate those kind of videos. The quasi celebrities making them always **** around for what seems like 2 1/2 hours tooting their own horn and being "funny" ie, smug. I just can't stand it.

i did watch the third video, and I agree with part of it but find some of it's reasoning contradictory. Atheists are always going on about how science and atheism aren't necessarily linked, but then when you show some atheists that don't seem up to snuff on the latest knowledge in the metaphysical experimentation of evolution they are all like . . . that wouldn't happen! It's like watching Condoleezza Rice pretend to be shocked that there could be an attack on the World Trade Center after explaining the attack on the World Trade Center occurred during a military exercise simulating an attack on the World Trade Center.

However, when I was thoroughly enjoying watching the original video, watching their faces as they realize how stupid evolution is I couldn't help but think that, after more than 20 years debating with atheists online, that this isn't real. This isn't how atheist would react in an interview like this. They would have walked away, or they would have gotten all smug and defensive and argumentative and mocking.

That's just how it is.

So I thought to myself, what are the possibilities? They found some amiable atheists and selected a few. Imagine the ones they rejected! They were fakes, or stooges as this video calls them. Actors playing the part of stupefied atheists. I come to the conclusion that the atheists in the original video were probably more amiable than reality would dictate because they were on camera. Being agreeable for their own 15 minutes of fame. Stranger things have happened. i could picture any of them on a reality game show eating slugs and wading through vats of cat sick for the same reason. To be on T.V.

 

[Earthling]

If you're interested in answers, set out the simple questions you'd like nonbelievers to answer, and I'm sure you'll get a reasonable and helpful response.

I'm not.