There is currently a great debate with regards to the existence of God. There is evidence on both sides of the argument and it is up to us to discern what is more plausible\reasonable and logical. I informally study both sides and I lean more on the side of theism due to the evidence that I found out, that is, I believe that there is God who exists outside of nature (the universe) and is the creator of all things. I will not use religious rhetoric to provide my evidence but logical statements to show evidence of how atheists (all that I have communicated with and from blogs) are intellectually dishonest.
The following are the common arguments that I have seen from atheists:
“We believe in the natural order of things, nothing supernatural, no miracles”
Here is a definition of supernatural from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: “a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature“
Something that is supernatural violates the laws of nature. The BIG BANG is thought of as a mechanism which brought about the universe and thereby the laws of nature. This means that it must have taken place outside of nature thereby being supernatural or miraculous. How is the belief in the big bang different from the belief in someone that exists outside of nature?
Conclusion: atheists are intellectually dishonest about not believing in the supernatural yet they believe the big bang.
“The similarities in animals means that they had a common ancestor”
I am not a scientist nor biologist but I can use logic to deduce conclusions. I agree that similarities in animals can mean a common ancestor but an alternative is that the similarities could mean that the same person build them all. Think about that for a minute. Artists produce work that has underlying similarities that is why people are able to look at a new painting and automatically identify who the artist is because the artist has left their way of design the painting.
The structure of the leg, though similar in different kinds of animals, could mean that there is no other way of creating the leg for the purpose that it serves. Think of all motor vehicles, they are all on 4 wheels because that is the optimal way (that we know of) of building a vehicle. We would not think that the vehicle is an evolution of something else.
Conclusion: atheists are intellectually dishonest by not considering that the similarities in animals could be because the same Person designed them.
“Evolution is fact, scientific, possible and reasonable. No faith required.”
Anything that is scientific can be tested, repeated and falsified. According to my limited knowledge, evolution cannot be tested, repeated and falsified. You cannot test it because “it takes too long for evolution to occur.” Many things taught in religion cannot be tested, repeated nor falsified and are taken on faith. Why is evolution classified as science when it has the same attributes as religion?
Here are simple minded questions that evolutionists fail to answer:
1. What did the eukaryote organism that we all supposedly evolved from feed on after it formed?
2. Think about this as well, whatever the eukaryote fed on had to evolve in a way that the eukaryote could digest it. What are the chances of that happening?
3. Mitochondrion provide energy to a cell, did the mitochondria (and other organelles in a cell) evolve?
4. Did that unicellular eukaryote have ALL genetic information for ALL living things? Did it have DNA ranging from germs and all the way up to humans?
5. What are the chances that male and female animals that we see today evolved at the same time, got sexually ready to mate and willing to mate with each other? Think about it, there are thousands of kinds of animals and to think that the males and females evolved (body parts) at the same, and had an interest in mating is absurd.
6. What exactly did the animals that lived in the water do to evolve lungs that can process oxygen from the air? Were they darting in and out of the sea water to initiate the evolution process? Think about it. The animal was in the water and in order to evolve, natural selection would initiate the process of creating lungs for air. Was there a time when the animals had half a lung for air and another half for water?
Try to systematically think about the very first organism and its journey that led to everything that exists today. Think from day 1 and ask yourself if it makes sense. Get an expert to explain and share this information with us. To me it does not make sense and it is not realistic.
“There is no objective moral standard. Anything goes as long as you do not harm anyone.”
An objective moral standard is one that exists outside of the individual. These are truths that are true no matter what. An example is it is wrong to torture and kill babies for pleasure. This is true in all circumstances. I do not know of any scenario where this would not be true?
My first question is this, why should harming anybody else be a problem? Animals in the wild hurt each other all the time. And if we are animals, why is hurting other humans wrong? By what standard do we determine that? I know about altruism - practice of being concerned about the welfare of others. But this is contradictory to natural selection because generally natural selection states that those suited for the environment will survive. So if it means taking someone else’s lunch in order to survive, then you are naturally selected.
The problem with illogical thinking.
Some of the reasons that I’ve heard with regards to accepting homosexuality are the following: the people consent, they are not harming anyone, and they love each other. These are absolutely good reasons, but let’s apply the same thinking to the following:
1. Paedophilia – sexual attraction to children
2. Necrophilia – sexual intercourse to a corpse.
3. Bestiality – sexual intercourse with an animal.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not comparing homosexuality to those 3 perversions but I am comparing the reasons for acceptance. Let us assume that there is no physical pain involved in those 3 perversions that I listed e.g. scientists came up with serums that prevent physical harm or even get the parties involved to enjoy themselves. Would there be anything wrong if there is no objective moral standard?
I could have added more scenarios but I think these are sufficient for now. I work with and have friends who are atheist that I have these sorts of conversations with and I our conversations are not very productive because it seems that they do not listen to the theists’ side. They only listen to the atheistic side about how “ridiculous” our claims are. And that is intellectual dishonesty. E.g. I recently spoke to atheist friend of mine about evolution and how the appendix and tailbone are claimed to be evidence of evolution because they are vestigial (not required anymore). I told them that those organs are not vestigial and it seemed that they had heard what I told them for the first time. I even provided url links to reputable scientific websites and they did not even look at them. My take on that is that they only listen to what they want to hear. Many of them do not want to believe, not because it is a matter of lack of evidence.
The reason that many people are deceived is because they do not think critically. I would like atheists to answer these questions in the comments and not address things that are not not related to the article. You will note that their comments will be ad hominem arguments (attacking me rather than my points), straw man arguments and logical fallacies. This is because they cannot answer the questions. This reminds me of an article I read about Richard Dawkins saying that atheists should mock Christians instead of having conversations with them. http://www.worldmag.com/2012/03/richard_dawkins_encourages_atheists_to_mock_and_ridicule_christians