((( I, Hereby, Announce The Fall Of Atheism Forever ))))

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Proud_Syrian, Jul 1, 2003.

  1. [​IMG]

    The Fall of Atheism
    by Harun Yahya. (A Turning Point in History)

    There are significant turning points in the history of mankind. We are now living in one of them. Some call it globalization and some say that this is the genesis of the “information age.” These are true, but there is yet a more important concept than these. Although some are unaware of it, great advances have been made in science and philosophy in the last 20-25 years. Atheism, which has held sway over the world of science and philosophy since the 19th century is now collapsing in an inevitable way....READ MORE:


  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Rumours of the death of atheism are greatly exaggerated.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Flores Registered Senior Member

    That was very informative and unbiased. Thanks Proud Syrian for the good read.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    An easy read, but sadly very out of date. It seems little more than a theist's dream.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Comments on errors in the article follow. Mostly, I will concentrate on the physics errors, but I will also mention a few other mistakes. There are too many in the article to make it necessary to cover the whole thing.

    <i>The first blow to atheism from science in the 20th century was in the field of cosmology. The idea that the universe had existed forever was discounted and it was discovered that it had a beginning; in other words, it was scientifically proved that it was created from nothing.</i>

    This has not been proved. The big bang theory says nothing about what existed prior to a certain time. For that, we will at least need a quantum theory of gravity.

    <i>[T]o accept that the universe had a beginning would mean that God created it and the only way to counter this idea was to claim that the universe was eternal, even though this claim had no basis on science.</i>

    This is not true. Showing that the universe has a beginning in no way mandates the existence of god. The universe could be self-caused - perhaps a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum.

    <i>the fact arrived at finally by modern astronomy is this: time and matter were brought into being by an eternally powerful Creator independent of both of them.</i>

    This is simply not true. Is this an example of the lack of bias you are talking about, Flores?

    <i>With the advance of research, it has been discovered that the physical, chemical and biological laws of the universe, basic forces such as gravity and electro-magnetism, the structure of atoms and elements are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Western scientists have called this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”.</i>

    There's nothing remarkable about this. Any universe in which humans exist must have physical laws which permit that existence. The use of the term "design" is misleading, since there is no necessary implication of a designer.

    <i>The wellknown astronomer, Paul Davies, writes in the last paragraph of his book The Cosmic Blueprint, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."</i>

    ...and, as we all know, looks can be deceiving.

    <i>In short, the idea of a random universe, perhaps atheism’s most basic pillar, has been proved invalid.</i>

    Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of gods. It has no extra baggage of the kind indicated in the article. Here we see one example. Atheism does not require any belief in a random universe.

    <i>The quarks, those energy packets, act in such a way that they maybe described as "conscious."</i>

    This statement is false. It is immediately followed in the article by a quote from physicist Freeman Dyson. Note that Dyson does not refer to consciousness at all. The juxtaposition of his statement and the previous statement aims to create a false impression of what Dyson is saying.

    <i>The discoveries by various branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, anatomy and genetics have shattered the theory of evolution from various aspects.</i>

    On the contrary, evolution is accepted by paleontologists, biologists, anatomists and geneticists today as the only viable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

    <i>The fossil of even a single undoubted intermediate species that would substantiate the belief in the gradual evolution of species has not been found.</i>

    This statement is a common creationist lie. Many such fossils have been found.

    <i>On the other hand, observations and experiments have shown that mutations defined by Neo- Darwinism as an evolutionary mechanism add no new genetic information to living creatures.</i>

    This is another false claim, which has been eloquently refuted by Richard Dawkins (among others).

    <i>All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. </i>

    No experiment, nor anything else, has shown this to be impossible.

    <i>Intricate examples of design, including our eyes that are too superior to be compared to any camera, the wings of birds that have inspired flight technology, the complexly integrated system of the cells of living things and the remarkable information stored in DNA, have vitiated the theory of evolution which regards living things as the product of blind chance.</i>

    Our eyes are actually far inferior to even the most basic camera. They are very badly designed, from an optical point of view. There are a number of very clear explanations of how eyes have evolved independently many times over the lifetime of the Earth. None of these require a god.

    In general, the article is quite clever in the ways it attempts to mislead. Practically all of the things it mentions in terms of medicine, psychology, politics and so on are unconnected in any way with atheism. The examples given are twisted so that they seem to support the overall argument of the piece.

    I encourage anybody who is interested to read other sources if you want to find out more about the things discussed. Just a little research will quickly show you that this article is hopelessly biased.
  9. kajolishot Registered Senior Member

    This does not automatically mean that some being initiated the creation. Just because we do not understand something does not justify assigning that task to a god or gods. There are plenty of credible theories about the origin of the big bang than is the "god did it."
  10. Flores Registered Senior Member

    None of the points mentioned are errors. You are simply commenting on other possibilities that should be considered that is also unproofed. An error is a clear mistake resulting from miscalculations or wrong reporting of facts. Neither are the case. This is an inexact interpretation of a phenomena or a presentation of a working model and your comments are by noway exact correction to the interpretations or seem to rebut the basic assumption behind the basic model of creation.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2003
  11. Flores Registered Senior Member

    There is nothing biased about reaching a conclusion that an eternally powerfull creator independant of the creation is behind the unexplained problem. He didn't say grey hair blue eyed Zues created us, he simply attributed the unknown element to an independant factor or function.. .I thought that's what we do in Physics when we are about to describe a phenomena.
    We say X = blablabla..

    He says, eternally powerfull creator = abc.....ect....^ Universe harmony.

    He never claimed to know the exact form of the function, but for a base model, I say, pretty darn accurate.
  12. Zero Banned Banned

    thanks for the load of shit

    Fall of Atheism?

    Theism fell a long time ago. Atheism is just there, so it never falls. Since it never makes outrageous claims like intelligent design myth or the creationism myth.
  13. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    I'd like to offer a brief opinion on this article:

    quote: "Science, which has been presented as the pillar of atheist/materialist philosophy, turns out to be the opposite. As another writer puts it, "The strict materialism that excludes all purpose, choice and spirituality from the world simply cannot account for the data pour in from labs and observatories."2 "

    The impression I get from the article (or at least the first part of it) is that, the author claims that since science has not proven all and everything and given us a Theory of Everything (yet!), it has failed.

    Well, I find this view itself deeply arrogant, as it requires one with the opinion that he knows all to make such a conclusion.

    Not only that, but I feel that the author is not out on a "true" mission of discovery (no ideological baggage, that is, no previous assumptions as to the state of things), but has a basic assumption about an existence of a God.

    And then he proceeds to knock at evolution... I only though christian fanatics dod that, but apparently Moslems have joined them in that undertaking.

    Objectivity totally collapses when the author proceeds to quote the Qu'ran in the section "Medicine: The Discovery of "How Hearts Find Peace" ".

    But the conclusion is the worst:

    "Conclusion. We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as “the way of reason and science,” is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance. Materialist philosophy that sought to use science for its own ends has been in turn defeated by science. A world rescuing itself from atheism will turn to God and religion. And this process has begun long ago. The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world. Harun Yahya. September 2002"

    When emperical method is pronouned to be "ignorance", expecially be an obviously (religiously) biased author, I lose my faith in said person to deliver an unbiased piece of work.

    Then again, perhaps an objective article is too much to expect from a site called "whyislam.org" - obviously a missionary site.
  14. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Aside from all the defects of the article that everyone else has
    pointed out, I wanted to note how the author tries to pass
    off his opinions as 'fact' all over the article. Just an example:

  15. DefSkeptic Registered Senior Member

    Article= pure bullshit.
  16. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    I love how they include a picture of Kant with a caption that bashes him. And all of this without any evidence. Guy you know that when they include a picture of someone they must be right...:D

    Of course Islam has been courting the intellectual bases since its inception. Back then it was a more tolerant religion however. In fact I was meeting with a group of Islamic student union members. I found the Quron to be a very dogmatic document, can't say where the specific evidence they cite as the big bang precurser theory. The truth is that if you make a book big and vague enough anyone can see anything in its pages.

    Of course we all are familiar with the esteemed:)D ) scholar(?) Patrick Glynn. Look at the damn website name...its an 800 number!

    It just a long strain of quotes taken out of context and unsupported claims. What's more they claim to refute Darwin!!!

    It is supposed that the proofs for this will be discovered in the fossil record, the petrified remains of living things. But fossil research conducted in the course of the 20th century has presented a totally different picture. The fossil of even a single undoubted intermediate species that would substantiate the belief in the gradual evolution of species has not been found.

    Apparently they deny the existence of humans as well. Consider that in the fossil records no humans could be found more than one million years ago. Of course there is an increasingly aspeciated set of prehumans who are period specific. So according to the article humans must have been created later and ironically all similar human forms must have been destroyed at the same time and yet some specific characteristics were integrated into these new humans.

    Read the Quran, you probably have already. But then read origin of species. If you want to subscribe to the something from nothing I can even lead you to a better version of that: Inflationary theory. What it comes down to is typical religious arrrogance: a virulent strain of stupidity.
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Flores sez:

    There is nothing biased about reaching a conclusion that an eternally powerfull creator independant of the creation is behind the unexplained problem.

    I thought that's what we do in Physics when we are about to describe a phenomena.

    That’s right, physics does describe phenomenon… with observations and evidence, and not with unsubstantiated claims and misinterpretations, as does the author of the article.
  18. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    I love it when religious folks try to wrap themselves in scientific presteige. They missquote a few facts, draw a few wrong conclusions, and as theists do, make up a lot of stuff because thats how theology works.

    There is a great analysiss of the argument against evolution in a book called "Why people believe weird things" did you know that if they worked like evolution does (by keeping useful changes and disgarding non useful changes) 10,000 monkeys in a room with 10,000 typewriters could recreate shakespears hamlet in about 4 days?
  19. Flores Registered Senior Member


    Did you say something nice, where exactly are you hiding the poison, my guards remain up.

    Still you're nice, so the idea was tolerant. How does a conceptual idea change, does an idea wake up all night and think of ways of changing itself, or do people like yourself contribute on twisting the facts about simple conceptual ideas to beyond recognition.

    I'll ship you a couple of Sesame street books, they are simple and straight forward and will satisfy your quest for knowledge.
    So you have found out about the Quran from meeting with a group of Islamic student union. What did you meditate and read thousands of pages in their your one time visit and reflected on your life, 1000 years of history and science and determined that everyword has no basis. And how come PhD dissertations are big and vague including Einstein. Maybe you should just say, the Quran is a special read for those that are knowleagable in the art of understanding.

    What are you saying, Darwin is irrefutable. Is he the new Atheist god or something. Last time I checked, scientific advancement is based on criticizing old ideas and finding errors to correct and advance. Are you saying that Darwin theoris are infaliable....He must be god then.

    I think you should say, I'll read the Quran myself before you recommend it to others. Actually, another language learning like arabic might even be more helpful, so you're not basing all your bull shit assault on another human translation.
  20. DJSupreme23 neocortex activated Registered Senior Member

    An odd trend...

    I've noticed, in this thread and others: Question the moslem's world view, and they get all hostile and profane... how odd!
  21. Prisme Speak of Ideas, not of things Registered Senior Member


    Reminds me of a theist argument... :)
  22. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Re: An odd trend...

    yes its almost as if they realize they are just playing a game of "lets pretend" and that the dirty materialistic athists actualy have a logical construct based on things that can be seen and measured, not just some vauge poorly written old book written by the sorts of people who would be locked up as mentaly deranged today. I wonder if these holy books would have been written if the anti-psychotic pharmasuticles we have today were available back then.
  23. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Re: An odd trend...

    You said:
    "Then again, perhaps an objective article is too much to expect from a site called "whyislam.org" - obviously a missionary site."
    "I only though christian fanatics dod that, but apparently Moslems have joined them in that undertaking. "
    Others said:
    "article= pure bullshit."
    "What it comes down to is typical religious arrrogance: a virulent strain of stupidity."

    Is that your idea of Questioning?
    Is this your sharp noticing of trends?

    Because cheap shot, cynical remarks, and confirming one's own narrow preconceived ideas is all that oozes out of you.

Share This Page