Jump to content
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    0
  • views
    26,906

Marilyn Adamson....ex-atheist retard!


Guest

14,144 views

 Share

Hey Guys...I wrote this a while ago, thought I'd share it.

 

I read it again and realise that I could do better. Maybe I will later...seems kinda pointless though.

 

Refutation to Marilyn Adamson’s

Is there a God?http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

If you look here, you will see the inane ramblings of a supposed ex-atheist woman named Marilyn Adamson. She posits 6 reasons why we should believe in God, not just a God, but the Christian God. So, I wrote an essay refuting her points.Marilyn Adamson’s article from EveryStudent.com on the argument for the existence of a God is interesting at best, and extremely misinformed at worst. Her arguments are as follows:1. Most cultures believing in God2. Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Design)3. Argument from probability4. Inherent sense of right and wrong5. God revealed in nature, and the bible6. Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.These arguments are the core of Adamson’s argument, and from that, she attempts to give credibility not to “a” God, but to her bias for the Christian God. While “a” god in any form can be defined as anything and therefore never can be proved or disproved, defining this God as the Christian God allows me to further refute her arguments.

 

Refutation of Argument 1:

 

Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Adamson uses this argument to show that because the majority of people believe in a God, and have believed in a God, it must lend credibility to there being the Christian God. First of all, each culture who had the early religions, such as the Sumerians, Chinese, Indian, and Native American peoples, all have very different religions. From these religions, as cultures diverge into differing cultures, stems other religions, and so on, much like the denominations of Christianity. These early cultures were extremely primitive in thinking, believing that lightening and earthquakes were caused by God. Crops failing and crops flourishing, natural disasters of all kinds were attributed to this God. Not one of these cultures had the same ideas as to what this God was like. Furthermore, polytheism was inherent in many cultures such as Sumerian myth, Greek myth, among others. These Gods took on roles of different aspects of human personality, and different aspects of nature. Using this as an argument for the existence of God, would be adding credibility to all of the religions, which would not bode well for Christianity, nor does it offer support to the existence of the Christian God.

 

Refutation of Argument 2: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

 

Adamson, in her infinite ignorance, attempts to show that the apparent design found on our planet offers compelling existence for a God. More specifically, the Christian God. She explains that the Earth is the right size and shape for life. That if it were any further from the sun, or with a different combination of gases, that life would be impossible. This is a rather humorous argument, as it equates to an analogy made by Douglas Adams about a puddle of water: “Oh look at this hole I’ve found, I fit so perfectly into it that it must have been made for me!”. If you don’t’ understand this, the water thinks that the hole it has found is perfectly designed for it, because the water fits right into the hole, not thinking that the water itself conforms to the conditions the hole has. The only life we have seen, has been life on Earth, that does not mean that life can only exist in the way we see it on Earth. If conditions were different on Earth, it’s possible that life would have come about differently.Next, she uses the argument that the human brain is too complicated to have “come about by chance”. This stems from the belief that a) Evolution is goal oriented and that Evolution operates on chance. Through observation and other aspects of the Scientific Method, we know that there are rudimentary brains from which ours have evolved from. The ability to reason and function can be seen in related species such as Chimpanzees, and Gorillas among the Great Ape family. Our brain is no more or less special than any other organisms abilities. The ability to communicate and reason is nothing new among animals.

 

Refutation of Argument 3: Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation of creation.

 

Adamson uses this argument to show that natural processes can not explain the complexity of our universe. She gives us an analogy about looking at Mt. Rushmore, and seeing the faces, and knowing that they must have been created. This is much like the idea that if one is walking in a forest, and finds a watch, the person deduces that the watch must have been created, and could not have come about naturally. This idea is fallacious, as we know that watches do not come about naturally, and have never seen a watch come about naturally. We can observe mountains forming through plate tectonics. We can observe the trees forming, and dirt being made. We can observe these processes happening naturally, without a God being right there all the time, creating every tree, and every human. Adamson also points to Sir Frederick Hoyle, who “showed” how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. I’d like to point out that Hoyle was an astronomer, and not, a biologist. His credentials equate to an english teacher trying to disprove complex mathematics. Anyways, I will get into specifics about Hoyles argument. Hoyle tries to show that life is statistically improbable. He wrote about it in his book “Evolution From Space”. He says that the statistic of life coming about naturally is 10^40,000 (p.24). Specifically, he states that a 20 amino acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Hoyle leaves this out, but there is a minimum specificity of this one specific possibility. That is 10^20. Hoyle mentions it by saying "by itself, this small probability could be faced" Even though it doesn't account that any number of the first organisms could be a possibility in having enzymes come together. He then states that the problem is there are 2000 enzymes. And therefore the chance of obtaining them is (10^20)*2000=10^40,000There are three flaws in Hoyles conclusion:1)Natural Selection is random.2)That all 2000 enzymes had to be hit upon all at once.3)That life began with complex enzymes working together.In answer to these flaws, natural selection is not random, but selective. It does not operate on chance, but on selecting what works from what doesn’t. What works moves on what doesn’t, doesn’t. Organisms do not use all 2000 enzymes, different organisms use different enzymes to function. Biologists all agree that life before is not as complex as it is now, therefore even if organisms today used all 2000 enzymes, it is not logical to believe they did in the past. Furthermore, calculating statistical probability on past events is a rather dangerous thing to do, as you cannot possibly account for all the factors that are involved in calculating the probability, one could come up with any astronomical answer, that doesn’t make it true.I would also like to add that current studies in science have shown that amino acids can come together “randomly” to form protocells, the studies have been done, and repeated:

 

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htmht...el_sci/fox.html

 

Refutation of Argument 4: Humankinds inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

 

Adamson argues that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that these must have come from God. I would like to point out that children in their formative years, do not have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Where do they learn that stealing is bad? Where do they learn that calling names is bad, or that hitting is bad?? They learn these things from their parents. Before a child can properly function in society, it has to learn how to function in society. Humans are not born with the knowledge of how to function in society, or there would be no need for laws. The Bible itself has a bunch of rules and regulations (ie the 10 Commandments), if we are inherently born with this sense of right and wrong, then why is there the need for these laws, and commandments? I wonder….I would also like to add that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

 

Refutation of Argument 5: God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.

 

Well, first I’d like to add that God has not revealed himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life. If he has, then everyone would all believe the same thing, which we don’t. Adamson uses an odd example showing that archaeological findings confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Such as confirming the existence of King David, the supposed author of many of the Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and other unnamed historical findings. Confirming the existence of King David offers nothing to the credibility of the Bible’s other stories, no more than the confirmation of finding the remains of the City of Troy confirms that Achilles really existed. It’s just another piece in the puzzle of history. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not offer credibility to the Bible arguments. These are not secular sources that confirm things in the Bible, rather they are actual books of the Bible, that show that scribes copying the books weren’t as meticulous as previously thought. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have found stories changed, added to, and rearranged from our other manuscripts found and dated about about 800 AD.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...html

 

Furthermore, Adamson tells us that the Bible was written over a 1500 year span, by (allegedly) 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, in 3 different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history. And yet she says there is consistency in this?? I’m surprised Adamson claims she has read the Bible, and there is consistency! We find contradictions in stories, numerical errors in dates, false information, translation errors. Not only that, but even the personality of God is conflicting in the Bible. He ranges from loving and forgiving, to hateful and death oriented, killing anyone and everyone.

 

Refutation of Argument 6: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.

 

I would like to point out that claiming that your religion is unique because Jesus says this, or does this, is nothing new. Each religion has their own unique little quirks that no other religion has. This does not add credibility to your argument, nor does it discredit your argument. It’s a moot point.Adamson claims Jesus was divine because he did things that people can’t do. Performing miracles. I’d like to ask if she’s ever seen Jesus perform any miracles. If she can show us where Jesus is performing miracles right now that were discussed in the bible. And if these miracles can be repeated, tested, and verified to be true. If any claims of Jesus performing miracles can be shown to me, I will sell one of my kidneys on the black market. But wait a second…isn’t Jesus not on Earth? Well, if he isn’t, then I guess she can’t prove that Jesus did perform miracles. The Gospels were written by men, at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died, at the latest, 100 years after he died, by people who did not know him, and who, by many accounts, do not agree with each other on what he did, and how he did them. So, I would like to ask, why do you believe this book that claims Jesus did miracles. When there is no outside reference to Jesus doing miracles. There is more veracity that Bigfoot exists (which he does not), than there is that Jesus even existed, let alone performed miracles. Adamson also tries to pull at my heartstrings by portraying God as gentle, loving, and aware of our self-centerdness and shortcomings. She states that we are all sinners, worthy of punishment. God is not gentle. A God who willingly slaughters, and orders the slaughter, of men women and children, is not gentle, or loving. A God who destroys the entire Earth and everything on it, is not gentle, or loving. A God who claims to be wrathful! Who admits to creating evil!! (Isaiah 45:7) is not gentle and loving. How is this loving? As to humans deserving punishment, if God is all-knowing, and all-powerful (and created evil), and God is the creator of everything, then God knowingly created us to sin. We are destined to do his will, and to follow his grand Plan for the Universe. If this is true, then we are no more deserving of punishment than the chair I’m sitting on. This also negates free will and choice. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, and he created everything, then we do not choose our path, he chose it for us. Anyways, Adamson also uses the tear-jerking story of Jesus’ crucifixion to compel her listeners to bow down and repent. I would like to acknowledge that if Jesus is God in the flesh, then God sacrificing himself (an all-powerful, all-knowing being), to a few hours of pain, isn’t exactly much of a sacrifice. Jesus may have died, but he was resurrected, and currently resides in Heaven. Where is the sacrifice? Did Jesus stay dead?? No.She also offers that Jesus’ resurrection is the most conclusive proof of Jesus’ divinity. Once again, I’m amazed that Adamson can claim to have read the Bible, and the Gospel accounts. On the points of Jesus Resurrection, all four books have something different to say. These accounts are so differing, as to render the veracity of the Resurrection to nothing more than a story. She melds the four accounts into one, without offering the different details, and states that over years of legal, historical, and logical analysis concludes that Jesus rose from the dead. Well…I’m going to let you analyze the four stories yourselves. But let me ask you some questions. Who arrived at the tomb? Who was there at the tomb at the time the people arrived? Who was told about the body being gone? What was Jesus’ lineage? How did Judas die? How was the field that Judas was buried in named?These are among the many strange contradictions in a supposed 100% infallible inerrant Word of God. Thank you for taking the time to read this refutation.

 Share

0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.