This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound - Comments

black wolf's Avatar Comment 1 by black wolf

This idiocy of wasted words resembles any Ray Comfort blog entry in its inaneness. It rehashes pseudo-arguments that have been long refuted. The 'challenge' it poses is so old it's reeking and liquifying. The logical fallacies climb over each other to waste the reader's time. If this is what passes for a reasoned, logical argument for believers, all it does is prove that they don't have the first clue what logic is.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:40:00 UTC | #181016

Steve13's Avatar Comment 2 by Steve13

Hi i'm new
Wow this article is bad but i did find out something new the bible attests for the 2nd law of thermodynamics apparently

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:41:00 UTC | #181017

entheogensmurf's Avatar Comment 3 by entheogensmurf

They used every argument which has failed. I may take the time to actually respond fully to this silly article.

I wonder if they even know what atheist/atheism actually means.

Oh well, at least it almost amused me (by the lack of surprise) to see that They have nothing new to challenge the mind.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:41:00 UTC | #181018

forksmuggler's Avatar Comment 4 by forksmuggler

Same old same old.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:42:00 UTC | #181019

clunkclickeverytrip's Avatar Comment 5 by clunkclickeverytrip

Rubbish of the first order.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:43:00 UTC | #181021

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 7 by mordacious1

Same old tripe, instead of a 747 it's 10,000 hundred story buildings. Rehash, repeat, regurgitate. on and on and on and on....

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:44:00 UTC | #181023

Ygern's Avatar Comment 9 by Ygern

Good grief.

The author gets it wrong on so counts I don't know where to begin. He's not so much barking up the wrong tree, as in the wrong forest..

Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available ... my foot.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:44:00 UTC | #181026

mind hypnotized's Avatar Comment 8 by mind hypnotized

Anthony Flew? I read that book. It was barely more than 120 or so pages long (double-spaced, with wide margins, I might add). It was so devoid of any real content or argument. Actually, it looked very similar to the first half of this article. Allow me to demonstrate by summarizing the central argument of that book (and, apparently, this "original" article).

Look around, dude.... Random? NOOOO WAAAYYYY!

Okay, so that's a bit of a strawman, but my point is still the same. Confusing pure randomness with the processes at work in big bang physics and evolutionary biology is an even worse fallacy than my strawman.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:44:00 UTC | #181024

healthphysicist's Avatar Comment 6 by healthphysicist

YAWN, YAWN.

The only "new" argument that the Jews have as compared to the other religions is the giving of the Torah in front of 600,000 families.

However, it is the Torah that makes that claim and it wouldn't be difficult for a small tribe to write that and then teach it to their kids. There are also conflicts within the Torah as to whether the people actually "saw" anything.

What a bunch of bull.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:44:00 UTC | #181022

AllanW's Avatar Comment 10 by AllanW

Oh man; so many words that can be reduced down to 'the argument from personal incredulity'.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:48:00 UTC | #181028

Steve13's Avatar Comment 11 by Steve13

Somebody should tell this author that Paley's watch stopped a long time ago

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:49:00 UTC | #181030

Badger3k's Avatar Comment 12 by Badger3k

To be honest, as soon as I saw the argument from incredulity as the first, absolutely-most-stunning-fantastic-argument-that-prove-atheists-wrong point, well, I stopped reading. Anyone who thinks that is the best evidence isn't worth the read.

Yawn.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:50:00 UTC | #181031

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 13 by Diacanu


The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.


Argument from design; failing right out of the gate here.


No one in their right mind would claim...


Argument from personal incredulity.
Bored already.


While there are complex proofs of the Divine,...


Ah, here we go, finally something interesting.


some dating back...


Ah...same old dusty theological shit....

*Skims past tired design arguments*


that all somehow came about randomly through evolution,...


Evolution by natural selection isn't random.
*Yawn*


I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points,...


Liar.


The anthropic argument


Utter crap.


The cosmological argument


Asscrap.


the teleological argument,


Bullshittery.


The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew's latest book,


A hoax, and exploitation of a dying old man.
I'm sickened now.


But all of these reasons, in reality, are unnecessary. The youngest school child can tell you that a building does not build itself and that, by extension, neither does a universe.


And the youngest school child will also ask "who made God?", and he'll never recieve an answer.
Or if he does, he'll get a bullshit one.

*Skips throught to the end as I'm genuinely nausiated now*

Ah, the author is a marketing asshole, there's a shocker.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:50:00 UTC | #181032

Steve13's Avatar Comment 14 by Steve13

Anthony Flew is a deist now and he didn't even write that book if i'm not mistaken

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:52:00 UTC | #181034

dyak's Avatar Comment 16 by dyak

Great title. Probably one of the best and most clearly worded titles I've ever come across in this debate. Yes indeed. That was a good title. Well done.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:52:00 UTC | #181036

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 15 by Tyler Durden

What a load of bollox!!

The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
The Argument from Design/Personal Incredulity.

NEXT!!

Yomin Postelnik is the President of IRPW, a company that offers business plans, funding advice and facilitation, SBA loan applications, SWOT analyses, bold and effective marketing strategies, general business development and grant writing and research for non-profits and certain qualified businesses.
Ah, that explains it.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:52:00 UTC | #181035

Fryslan's Avatar Comment 17 by Fryslan

Pompous, pontificating, philosophical piffle.

"Simply put, a book that claims to have been Divinely given to millions cannot take hold on a widespread level if it is not true."

Priceless.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:53:00 UTC | #181038

Elles's Avatar Comment 18 by Elles

I have one thing to say to that... and it's an action.

*headdesk*

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:55:00 UTC | #181040

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 19 by Henri Bergson

Against Anthropic Principle (part of teleological argument):
Kant: inversion of cause and effect: the laws of nature were the cause of life; life was not the (final) cause of the laws of nature.
The river Thames was not created to provide water for London.

Against ontological argument:
Kant: existence is not a predicate, but a condition for predicates.

Against cosmological argument:
if something complicated must come from something complicated, then that applies to that first cause.

And Kant was a Christian!

A lot of error comes from the animal tendency to immediately seek an intention for an effect. A dog assumes an intention behind a random noise and barks. This dog-thinking is the root cause of theology.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:55:00 UTC | #181041

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 20 by Frankus1122


The central point of the atheist, that all somehow came about randomly through evolution,


I stopped there.

The penny has to drop at some point for these people.
They must come to the realization(or realisation) that their arguments have been successfully refuted.
As I said elsewhere, it is not the case that creationist/Iders know more than 'we' do. They know less. They argue from a position of ignorance.

I read the last line of the article and I agree:

The reader is encouraged to study further and to ask questions.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:56:00 UTC | #181043

Mango's Avatar Comment 21 by Mango

The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we'd have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.


Enter the ice worm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_worm

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:57:00 UTC | #181044

Shane McKee's Avatar Comment 22 by Shane McKee

Good Lord. How can atheists maintain that an article like that comes from intelligent design, when it is self-evident that the author is an ignorant gibbering buffoon??

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:59:00 UTC | #181047

Edamus's Avatar Comment 23 by Edamus

Such a waste of time; to have read this and to have written this...

If I were given $5 for every instance my time is wasted I would be a rich man... we all would.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:01:00 UTC | #181049

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 24 by Peacebeuponme

A quick summary:

I don't understand how the universe came to be, so god must have done it.

The bible is the best book ever because the bible says so.

The end.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:01:00 UTC | #181050

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 25 by irate_atheist

Total end-to-end bollocks and lies. Every sentence a lie, a misrepresentation or a display of gross and total ignorance. Complete and utter fucktard territory.


Edit: Did I neglect mention the author is quite clearly a cunt? No? Well, I've redeemed myself in this edit.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:02:00 UTC | #181052

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 26 by Tyler Durden

Perhaps we could (try to) educate this gentleman by sending him a courteous (but firm) electronic transmission pointing out his (oh so many) obvious errors:

ypostelnik@InsidersReview.org

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:03:00 UTC | #181053

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 27 by thewhitepearl

I stopped at "consider the following." I can see I'm going to need my cup of java first.

I presume that any old joe can write an article in the canadian free press and have it published?

Oh, he left his e-mail....fun

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:07:00 UTC | #181055

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 29 by irate_atheist

26. Comment #190573 by Tyler Durden -

Superb idea. A line by line dissection of his bullshit would be good.


Edit: I'm sorry. I forgot to call him a fucking twat.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:08:00 UTC | #181057

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 28 by Diacanu

Peacebeuponme-

ROTFL!! Pefect! Couldn't have said it better.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:08:00 UTC | #181056

al-rawandi's Avatar Comment 30 by al-rawandi

tyler, whitepearl,





Do I sense an email campaign coming on?



My emails, in my usualy friendly tone, generally elicit some incredible responses. Make sure you post up the responses you get, assuming you even get them.

I have received the following from a well worded and thought out email:


"Fuck you!"



Love it.

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:10:00 UTC | #181059