Guess what everyone….apparently atheism is easy to refute!!

[z3n]

The other day as I was perusing though some Christian apologetic web sites I came across one particular web site that was so amusing that I just can’t help mentioning it.

It’s called the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (or CARM (www.carm.org) as it’s called on the street) and it mostly has the typical gobbley gook that most web sites of it’s type have. However, I happened to see one link that caught my eye. Cut and paste information (http://www.carm.org/cut.htm) “designed for use by Christians who need quick, easy information to quote and cut and paste into internet discussions where they defend the faith on and against various topics”.

Oh now that is just precious, so I had to check their section on atheism (http://www.carm.org/cut/atheism.htm) to see what it said. Here is the introduction (it’s frigging classic):

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. It takes practice, but you can do it.
The following statements are for copying and pasting into chat rooms. Use them to see how atheists react. Use them to learn how to respond better to atheists. Please understand that these are not "stoppers." But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions. In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue with them better.

It then goes on to list various statements to cut and paste to use to attack and respond to atheists. A couple aren’t too bad, but most of them range from silly to just plain absurd and contain a lot of “straw man” fallacies.

[Philboid Studge]

I might consider joining the Church of the Screaming Blue Ants (see 1.A.iv). After all, it is supported by the same intellectual underpinning as atheism.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'll sign up for the Church of the Screaming Blue Ants only if I get a t-shirt and/or a hat. That's how I currently base all my decisions, on whether or not a position will allow me to where a nice hat.

Rhinoq

[StillSurviving]

"# What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence. "

" Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause. "

Contradiction within 4 lines of each other.

[Tenspace]

Oh now that is just precious, so I had to check their section on atheism (http://www.carm.org/cut/atheism.htm) to see what it said. Here is the introduction (it’s frigging classic):

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. It takes practice, but you can do it.
The following statements are for copying and pasting into chat rooms. Use them to see how atheists react. Use them to learn how to respond better to atheists. Please understand that these are not "stoppers." But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions. In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue with them better.
Do they have a section on how to ignore atheist's repeated requests for answers to rational questions? I think it's hilarious that they can avoid condescension and maintain ration, all the while believing in their supergod.

Tenspace

[z3n]

I thought that the condescension bit was pretty funny too. They say not to return condescension but I noticed that they don’t say anything about being careful to not become self-righteous. I guess they figure that that’s not a problem for Christians.

[z3n]

Oh and sign me up for the Church of the Screaming Blue Ants. Since I’ve never explicitly stated that I don’t believe in them I guess I must believe in them. :D

Just out of curiosity though, do they follow the same doctrine as the Raelians, because if they do then I’ll be an active member. :P

[Viole]

If you think that's bad, check out these bits on Islam:

Birds can talk: "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (Quran 27:16).

"And Solomon was David's heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour," (Quran 27:16, Pickthall, trans.).

Ants can talk: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (Quran 27:18).

"Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving," (Quran 27:18, Pickthal, trans.).
Oh, the irony!

[Philboid Studge]

But but but ... birds can talk. Parrots, macaws, ravens, and I once heard about a cock who crowed thrice.

As for ants, they can not only talk -- but certain blue varieties have been known to scream.

[Rhinoqulous]

Not only scream, but now ants are building traps (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050420_ant_trap.html). We should bow before our new masters before they kill us all.

Rhinoq

[Philboid Studge]

We should bow before our new masters before they kill us all.
Kent Brockman agrees!

"The spacecraft has apparently been taken over – 'conqured' if you will – by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves." [/Kent Brockman]

[solidsquid]

LOL...that's funny.

[z3n]

If you think that's bad, check out these bits on Islam:

Birds can talk: "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (Quran 27:16).

"And Solomon was David's heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour," (Quran 27:16, Pickthall, trans.).

Ants can talk: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (Quran 27:18).

"Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving," (Quran 27:18, Pickthal, trans.).
Oh, the irony!
Talk about irony; check this out this little gem from the Bible in the book of Numbers:

22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
22:29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee
22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

So it seems that Christians accept the idea of a talking donkey, but talking ants and birds, well that’s just craziness.

[benjaminbp18]

Thanks for sharing that z3n, absolutely hilarious!
I can't help but point and laugh at such garbage:
"They don't have any evidence for atheism" - Just look around and it's all around you!
"They can't logically proof there is no God" - Does that imply that we can prove it, just not logically? :P
"You can soon find that their logic has many holes in it"="We don't understand what the hell they're saying so, it must be wrong."
"Ask them to give rational reasons for their position" - They can't possibly be saying that their beliefs are rational. O Jesus Christ, thank God for atheism.

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

Atheism is not a myth or a belief. The female orgasm is the myth. :)

[Tenspace]

The female orgasm is the myth. :)
Personally, I find that it's a tested fact. :D

Ten

[Spurius Furius]

Atheism is not a myth or a belief. The female orgasm is the myth. :)
No way Sin-O-Lot. Only young girls fake orgasms to make you feel better about your abilities. Older women won't let you stop until they are there, or they will be very pissed at you if you fail to get them there. Time to work on your technique my man!

[bobfritzelpuff]

Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?
Now that could sound really perverted if taken the wrong way.

[z3n]

Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?
Now that could sound really perverted if taken the wrong way.
Shit, there’s stuff in the Bible that’s perverted no matter how you take it.

[valleyshrew]

There's no evidence for theism, therefore atheism is the default and rational position. I hate how theists don't realise atheism doesn't have the burden of proof. In school (Catholic school) we were told that atheists might try and convert us, and they handed us out a sheet of paper with some arguments. I can't remember all of them, one was a modification of pascals wager, and another was that why would the majority of people believe in a lie. Apparently they didn't realise that they ignored their own advice in being atheists towards every other religion. Theists have no argument when they realise that they are all atheists themselves.

[LogicMan]

(quoted from site)
1. The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
A. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
B. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
C. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
D. The are absolute because there is an absolute God.
2. The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

1/ Incorrect in several ways.

A/ The word "Universe" properly defined is all inclusive. That is the universe is the physical manifestation
of existence. Or in other words; existence describe the Universe. To exist outside of existence is a
contradiction.
B / Logic is not a set of laws. Logic is the action of properly ordering of facts into concepts. Facts are
proven observations of that which exists.
C/ This is an incorrect definition of Logic. See above.
D/ Again Logic is not a set of laws. However Things that actually exist are absolutely what they are...Hence Aristotle's "A is A". that is a thing is what it is. To exist is to be a part of the primary absolute...existense.
That which actually exists is absolute.
Existence is the reality (real, actual) we perceive with our senses. We perceive it because we exist.
Because existence exists and is a primary we must accurately define it. For existence (the Universe) to exist there can not be such a thing as nothing. Nothing is the contradiction to something. The something is the Universe (existence). Something can not come from nothing. That is a contradiction. For something to exist there has to be something for it to exist in (the Universe). The Universe (existence) is the primary, the something that has always been.

2/ Absolutely incorrect in several ways as described above. I do love the contradiction of saying that a viewpoint which holds an unprovable magical being as it's primary is where a person must go in order to argue rationally when of course the opposite is true.

A couple of rebutles from the The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic page

1/C Man, being made in God’s image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.

Again Logic is not a set of laws and man's brain is capable of abstractive and associative observational operations that are up to the task of figuring out that which exists.

2/A If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws
of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."

Wrong. Only those who do not understand absolutes.

The rest contains really flawed thinking as above.
But the bottom line is that the difference between religious people and scientist is as follows:
Scientist only accept proven evidence...facts and properly tested and verified concepts, where as Religious types
accept (attempt) beliefs as valid without proof or testing and when pushed to the intellectual wall resort to saying
that the thing they believe in exists outside of existence(a contradiction) therefore can not be tested or
proven only believed.

This following quote was the only thing that contained any real substance, though only in the context that only some
atheists think this way:

If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws
of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."

Those atheists who do not understand absolutes will fall for this superficial social observation and what this boils down to is a substitute for beliefs...consensus. Both are flawed.

One final note: Religeous people rely on numbers in order to feel secure as they do not have objective facts back them up.

[Another brick in the wall]

The biggest difference I noticed between science and religion while I was growing up was that in science debate
was encouraged and in church it was shunned. Also, scientists use a lot of qualifiers suchs "could," "possibly" etc,
whereas the religious types always seemed to be absolutely sure of themselves.

In any case, logic is a human invention to help understand the world; just like numbers. Logic wasn't really fleshed out until Plato and Aristotle came along. And there were many other philosophers who contributed to its development up to the twenieth century. The most recent discovery in logic is Godel's theorem, which states that some propositions are unprovable. I'm waiting for religious people to argue that mathematics could not exist without god.

[the ace of jacks]

I would really like to take a Christian in debate. Quick question that I could probably look up but I could get a better answer from you- is theism just any religion with a god, or is it something different?

[Little Earth Stamper]

I would really like to take a Christian in debate. Quick question that I could probably look up but I could get a better answer from you- is theism just any religion with a god, or is it something different?
I think it's just any belief in a deity of somer sort. It doesn't have to be an organized religion.

[Another brick in the wall]

Here's a new topic:

Which religion is the most benign? I'll vote Jainism.

Which religion is the most dangerous? Fundamentalist Islam.

[ocmpoma]

theism isn't a religion or type of religion. Theism is the belief that some sort of deity or deities is real.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Here's a new topic:

Which religion is the most benign? I'll vote Jainism.

Which religion is the most dangerous? Fundamentalist Islam.
Neo-paganism is the most benign, because there aren't enough of them to do any damage.

[Another brick in the wall]

I guess the question of "which is the best religion?" is sort of like "which is the best cancer?"

[Another brick in the wall]

Which one is it then?