Five Questions To Ask An Atheist

[IvyFairy]

Since Jester and I have to go to Church - due to our living agreements....

I found a bookmark that they have for people in the Jr. High and College meeting room.

 

What are all of your thought on this bookmark that this Christian Church is passing out?

 

Here it is as follows....

 

 

----

 

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK AN ATHEIST

 

1.  How did the Universe Originate?

 

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing.  But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus atheists violate this Law of Science.

 

2.  How did Order Originate?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time.  But atheists argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.

 

3.  How did Life Originate?

 

Atheists believe living organisms first arose from non-living matter.  However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life."  Thus atheists violate these foundations of Biology.

 

4.  Was there a Cause for People?

 

The Law of Causality states: "Every effect must have a cause."  Atheists would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but they argue there was no cause for people.  Thus atheists violate the Law of Causality.

 

5.  Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design.  Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

 

Laws of science show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

[dogmatically_challenged]

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK AN ATHEIST

 

1. How did the Universe Originate?

 

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing. But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus atheists violate this Law of Science.

 

Either God is eternal or the universe is. I know the universe exists but do not know if god does. And here's an example of an orderly structure which seeminly looks to be the work of something intelligent. A snow flake. Snowflakes are created from climatic events, but we can't find a creators hands in it. Seems to me the universe could be in an eternal state of change. I dunno. Through science we see so much that is orderly from natural causes but no evidence of a creator...yet.

 

But to be honest I don't know if there is a Creator behind the natural events that is the universe. I can't see anything that points to a Creator. I'll change my mind when I see enough evidences to believe in a Creator.

 

2. How did Order Originate?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time. But atheists argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.

 

There's no such thing as chaos. There's only our limited understanding of all that is going on in a phenomina of nature. Everything is orderly according to its nature.

 

3. How did Life Originate?

 

Atheists believe living organisms first arose from non-living matter. However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life." Thus atheists violate these foundations of Biology.

 

I don't know. Can you prove how life originated? I only believe in what there is evidence for. That makes me an atheist.

 

4. Was there a Cause for People?

The Law of Causality states: "Every effect must have a cause." Atheists would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but they argue there was no cause for people. Thus atheists violate the Law of Causality.

 

It is a demonstrable fact that nature causes things to happen in nature. All causes are natural as far as we can see. We are a part of nature. If there is a creator behind everything there is no evidence that I am aware of. Therefore I have no belief in a creator. I want evidence.

 

 

5. Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

 

Laws of science show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

 

A snowflake looks designed. Looks like a doily sewed by someones grandmother. The snowflake is made by natural phenomena

 

(Sorry. I don't know squawt really about cosmology, abiogenisis, evolution or biology. So much for being the stereotypical atheist. hehe

 

But I do know about the Scientific Method and the creationists aint using it to demonstrate a creator.)

[pitchu]

My thoughts?

 

True Believers burn the books.

 

Atheists probably wouldn't even burn the bookmarks.

[dogmatically_challenged]

My thoughts?

 

True Believers burn the books.

 

Atheists probably wouldn't even burn the bookmarks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HEHE!

[Guest Tiffany]

I hate Christians.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am afraid of Christianity. And I really hate bible worship.

[IvyFairy]

When I saw this bookmark it made me laugh, a majority of Christians think that all atheists think the same. I thought an what made people Atheists was the fact that they didn't believe in god. Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc... have a structured belief system so when someone says "oh I am a catholic" you have an idea of what they believe. Such is not the same with Atheists there are many scientific theories that Atheists subscribe to regarding the origin of the universe and life but Christians and such just make snap judgments based on the fact that you are an Atheist. They don't bother actually asking and learning about your thoughts maybe its because making assumptions if just so easy. It just shows the laziness of most Christians.

[spamandham]

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing.  But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus atheists violate this Law of Science.

 

Classic strawman. If there are any atheists at all that claim that energy originated from nothing, they certainly don't form a large enough group to count as "many".

 

Since it starts right off the bat with a lie, there is no need to do any more than point out this obvious attempt at deception and move on.

 

...Next!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I think there can be some truths in stereotypes but not always. And cultures, religions and our attitudes change.

 

Stereotyping is a risky method indeed. Do they still ask those very questons? Or do they have new and improved strawman and stereotypes of atheist or science?

[IvyFairy]

Classic strawman.  If there are any atheists at all that claim that energy originated from nothing, they certainly don't form a large enough group to count as "many". 

 

Since it starts right off the bat with a lie, there is no need to do any more than point out this obvious attempt at deception and move on.

 

...Next!

good point there Spam

 

I just think that it is sad that the church is giving this info to JR. High, High school, and College students as FACT. Same old rhetoric BS that I have grown to expect from Christians.

[Godless Dave]

There is no Law of Biogenesis or Law of Causality. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say what they think it says. The early universe was more ordered, not more chaotic, than it is now.

[Lunar Shadow]

Like I said about the evolution thread Ivy and I are gonna have a Field day with this FUNDIES BEWARE

 

See at least we know we can come here to get some factual info

 

I am currently stuck in my process of growing as an Atheist I am at the point of.... Yeah I know that’s wrong but I can't quite explain how or why... but hanging around here and doing a lot of reading becoming more educated in philosophy, science, church history, secular history, and so on. I feel lucky, this is kinda like a support group for struggling and growing Atheists

[Vixentrox]

Maybe thier intelligent designer is an alien. It's just as plausable as thier invisible sky daddy.

[Ouroboros]

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK AN ATHEIST

 

1.  How did the Universe Originate?

 

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing.  But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus atheists violate this Law of Science.

And many atheists don’t believe matter and energy originated from nothing, but that there was something else “before” the Big Bang. For instance they call the “nothing” to be ordered, have properties and have structure. How can nothing have attributes? So maybe we don’t understand what the scientists mean with the word “nothing”?

 

The Laws of Thermodynamics only applies to physics above quantum physics. TLoT is not real physical laws but are results of the current structure of the Universe. Quantum gravity, vacuum energy, dark matter could be explanations to why TLoT can be violated.

 

 

2.  How did Order Originate?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time.  But atheists argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.

This is a mix-up of the words and definitions. The Big Bang had lower entropy than the universe, so Big Bang followed the 2nd LoT.

 

3.  How did Life Originate?

 

Atheists believe living organisms first arose from non-living matter.  However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life."  Thus atheists violate these foundations of Biology.

Two different theories: the Cell Theory has nothing to do with Biogenesis. Biogenesis is the theory of “Life comes from non-life”. Different theories use words in different ways. Don’t mix up astronomy with cooking, you don’t want apply black hole entropy formulas on a apple pie.

 

You can’t apply the Laws of Relativity to Quantum Physics, and vice versa. And it doesn’t it make one or the other false. We can measure and prove both of them. So there is contradictions in nature, just accept it.

 

4.  Was there a Cause for People?

 

The Law of Causality states: "Every effect must have a cause."  Atheists would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but they argue there was no cause for people.  Thus atheists violate the Law of Causality.

And now there’s talk about another “law”, quantum entanglement. There is cause, effect and entanglement. And in quantum physics there are uncertainties and chance involved, and quantum mechanics breaks the causality too. So you say you’re blind, because light never travels to your eyes? Quantum mechanics are real, and yet it doesn’t follow your textbook.

 

5.  Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design.  Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

 

Laws of science show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

So the Bible is false then, “Faith is belief in things we DON’T see”, and yet you claim Science show things so we can believe… Something doesn’t add up in faith here.

 

Is the Mandelbrot’s Fractal an intelligent design? It follows a strict formula, yes the formula was created, but it was created by pure chance, it was a mistake, but the Fractal Set is very beautiful, and infinite in design. It’s the essence and trademark of ordered chaos. It has structure and design. And yet it was pure luck that created it…

[I Broke Free]

1) Atheists violate this Law of Science.

 

2) Atheists violate these foundations of Biology.

 

3) Atheists violate the Law of Causality.

 

Wow! I never knew that atheists were given such special powers! I am going outside to practice levitation!

 

I find it interesting (and very revealing) that they have “personified” violations of physical law. Why would they do that?

[pitchu]

Wow!  I never knew that atheists were given such special powers! I am going outside to practice levitation!

 

(C'mon, IBF, you can do it!  You can do it!)

 

I find it interesting (and very revealing) that they have “personified” violations of physical law. Why would they do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, it seems they want to usurp the field of science (as in demanding that Intelligent Design be accepted as scientifically credible) then lump all detractors into the category of scientifically unsupportable. Nifty trick. Though completely transparent. I wonder why the inventors of Intelligent Design wouldn't have Designed themselves more Intelligently.

[Skankboy]

Wow! I never knew that atheists were given such special powers! I am going outside to practice levitation!

 

Don't bother, it's a crock. I've been practicing for years now, and I've never gotten more than a few inches off the floor...

 

 

[♦ nivek ♦]

So effing what?

 

So effing what?

 

So effing what?

 

What does this have to do with anything about where you are at now?

 

Why should I give a flaming fuck through a rolling 747 tire about your opinion?

 

BFD, mickey mouse reasoning abounds, your faith is as useful as my reasoning, and I could care half a shit less than nothing about how I ended up here.

 

My tinfoil cap is screwed on tight, and your arguments are a waste of time...

 

"Want a beer?" "You don't? Can I have yours?"

 

kL

[Celsus]

Same old Argument #1033 (1) There are some things we can't explain. (2) Imagine that! (3) Thus insert deity here exists!

[Thurisaz]

What are all of your thought on this bookmark that this Christian Church is passing out?

 

Considering the sheer amount of bullshit and PRATTness in what you quoted, are you sure you quoted all of it? There must be a "© DrDino" hidden somewhere...

[Thurisaz]

I wonder what an "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" class would look like.

 

Do you know that nice picture about what the textbooks would look like? A fellow heathen sent me an image some time ago (sorry, can't post it now 'cos I'm at the office and have that pic at home) where a student looks at a book with a plain black cover and a title that says:

 

"High school science - King James version"

[duderonomy]

Ahhhh. the Mighty Second Law of Thermodynamics...

 

Well, I'm certainly no scientist, but I do know this...

 

When I was born (they tell me), I pooped all over and couldn't feed myself or keep myself warm or safe.

Chaos to me!

 

But soon, order came from this chaos; I could use the potty and find a cookie if I were hungry.

 

Now I'm a little older, and although I may not be the spring chicken I once was, I can pretty much rule 'my world', and keep the order in it.

 

But I'm still going to die soon.

 

In other words, is entropy true? Is everything winding down towards some end, and did this all come from some great and perfect beginning?

Or is the universe actually getting 'better'?

 

The truth is, Thermodynamics or not, that no one really knows.

It seems to be winding down, but on the other hand, it seems to be getting better. NO ONE KNOWS!

 

It is possible for me to grow, learn, expand, and for all of my appearences and experiences get 'better', all within the framework of my own life slowly dimming and slowly ending (obviously why I don't spend a lot of time on spelling lessons).

 

 

I have certain flowers in my yard that bloom every spring/summer, and some that are there for a short time, and then are gone.

Jesus spoke of the latter, 'which today are, and tomorrow are cast into the oven', but He never spoke of the former.

So what to believe then? Of these plants/flowers, which one is winding down, and which one isn't?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, it must be said that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a great theory, but still, NO ONE KNOWS.

 

Sorry if this is to esoteric, but it goes to show why Atheists/Agnostics/Ex-Christians don't pass out a lot of bookmarks.

 

The world just isn't that dogmatic.

 

Thanks for bearing with me.

 

 

Oh yeah... If God created everything, and the 'Earth will stand forever', and the 'Word' will endure/last forever, then how is all of this that God created going through this entropic process?

 

Maybe He can't maintain it? Maybe He wants it to die? Maybe He created it to last forever (not)?

[duderonomy]

And as to the First Law of Thermodynamics...

If matter and or energy can't be created, then how and with what did God create this matter we call Earth, or this energy we call 'Life'?

Did He once again violate His own 'laws'?

 

 

I don't even pretend to be a scientist, nor do I pretend to understand the 'Laws of Thermodynamics', or a lot of other sciences but man oh man, how shallow is the belief that could put this on a bookmark!

No offence, Ivy, I know you were just posting what you found!

 

[Guest Joseph]

From: IvyFairy:

 

QUOTE(Bookmark Found @ Valley Bible in Pleasanton @ CA)

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK AN ATHEIST

 

1.  How did the Universe Originate?

 

Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing.

 

I have never read a single post, book, and/or paper...nor have I ever read a scientific hypothesis that anything came from absolute nothingness.

 

The scientfic answer of a "Singularity" model (infinitely small...big bang) or perhaps the brane worlds colliding to for our universe DO NOT ASSUME that nothing existed. It states very clearly that energy existed and that from this our universe and space-time was generated.

 

This begins with an outright lie, therefore the credibility is zero at this point.

 

But the First Law of Thermodynamics states "matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed," thus atheists violate this Law of Science.

 

First, nature itself defies this law at various quantum points. But that is for a much more involved discussion. However, taking the presumption of "Singularity" does not say that energy and matter were generated...it merely states that the universe came to be from it. This is the common displacement tactic of the theistic argument. From which they make the universe the generated "thing" and their particular deity becomes the uncreated-creator.

 

It would be easier to simply follow Occam's Razor [one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything] when dealing with the advent of our universe. Thus deity is needless as it is an "uncreated Creator." If someTHING can exist that is uncreated then the UNIVERSE can take the place of this "thing" by definition. Classic displacement.

 

2.  How did Order Originate?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time.  But atheists argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.

 

Whew, where to begin.

 

The Earth does not apply to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We (as a non-closed system) "steal" energy from the Sun, the Earth's rotation, and the moon's orbit (think tides). Not a closed system. We outright go against this law because we are having energy put into us.

 

On a grander scale however, our Sun will die and the "order" of our system will then go back to "disorder." Our matter will then collapse into another star and become another system and perhaps even be a part of other lifeforms in the exceedingly long distance of time's future. Carl Sagan has explained this beautifully and labeled us all "children of the stars" for this very reason.

 

Atheists do not argue that the universe went from chaos and disorder to order. In fact, the universe is a very ordered state and always has been. Very definite laws and chemical processes and forces work to bring about very predictable events. The term "order" and "chaos" are extremely subject and used by the creationists / theist in this context very poorly. A better term is entrophy. And a better way to think about the 2nd law is "Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered."

 

"Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature."

 

Our useage of the Sun's energy to have life will end at a point and we will "answer" to the entropy that comes with our Sun's death.

 

ref:

http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html#what

 

3.  How did Life Originate?

 

Atheists believe living organisms first arose from non-living matter.

 

Another lie and/or assumption that all atheists believe alike.

Various thoughts:

-Life comes from seeding from other worlds upon which life originated.

-Life comes from inorganic matter.

-Life was purposely seeded by other life.

-Abiogenesis (inorganic to organic).

-Spontaneous Complete Cell Theory.

-Ect.

 

It is much more likely that we are the product of comet impact that any deity. But whether a deity exists EVEN IF not our direct creator is another story entirely. The basic chemistry of life has the probabilty of forming at any given time given the right circumstances.

 

However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life."  Thus atheists violate these foundations of Biology.

 

The "foundations of biology" is not the law of biogenesis nor Cell Theory. In fact I have yet to read them and I took biology classes. Also, even if these dogmas exist they have the ability to be changed by data which presents that these ideas are wrong. That is the important difference between an idea and a belief. An idea can be changed with enough evidence.

 

Since this is such a stupid statement I will stop but I could go on and on about the stupidity of this particular claim. Utterly lunacy. Science is not blockaded by ancient ideas nor ancient statements in third grade biology class text books. Such statements were infact probably influenced by theistic thoughts more-so than based upon actual evidence. You have to realize that it has taken centuries to remove the theistic influence of science and the statements many times used to say that atheists are violating a law of science are either extremely outdated for present evidence or are historically based upon theistical assumptions of ancestors.

 

Such "laws" of science in various instances should be violated because they have been demonstrated a lie by modern science. This of course is something that a creationist can not understand because their beliefs are not testable and therefore they are based upon dogmas which go unquestioned regardless of proof. Science is not based upon dogma but upon evidence driven theory.

 

4.  Was there a Cause for People?

 

The Law of Causality states: "Every effect must have a cause."  Atheists would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but they argue there was no cause for people.  Thus atheists violate the Law of Causality.

 

This is sad really. The law of causality does not apply in the manner it is being used. Atheists would not argue that a pencil had no cause but would test to see if it had a natural or un-natural history. Instead of just "accepting" that the pencil was what some ancient text claimed, science / atheists would seek to demonstrate that intelligent design existed in the pencil and/or that there are in existence natural processes that make / produce it.

 

Atheists do not violate the law of causality because the natural processes of life are found in nature and are the result of natural chemistry. There is no evidence for special creation and to the contrary there is very much evidence for evolutionary development (and genetic drift / mutation along with natural selection being the drive for evolution). Far from violating any law of causality the theist is the one violating this law with the advent of an uncreated creator. For the atheist the universe has always existed and/or exists in a manner that time is circular in some event. For the creationist they are claiming that their uncreated creator created all that is outside time. This is nothing more than another attempt at displacement in the end which is not following Occam's Razor .

 

5.  Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design.  Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?

 

The human body has more junk DNA and broken genetic traits than working ones. The human body also contains various outside genetic code from "captured" genetic sources over time which are the same as other primates (which demonstrates a common ancestor). The human body has various functions which are extremely "rigged" in operation. The human body does not show any such design as that of an omniscient entity, especially not an omnipotent entity. That anyone would claim intelligent design is not a problem as atheists have no problem that our planet's life may have been the product of genetic design of some other race of beings. In fact, some argue this due to the problems of abiogenesis.

 

Even if somewhere in our DNA structure is the specific code that is found "Copyright year 45533 of the alterzarian calendar" doesn't mean your biblegod did it, or any other unknown entity. Science and most atheists leave the origin of life up in the air until something is DEMONSTRATED. But needless to say that sooner or later man may have inorganic to organic figured out and at that point will force the "god of the gaps" argument even further back. Also this is almost like a version of Pascal's wager and even if this would bring us to accept that any deity might exist there is no more reason to accept any particular deity over another as all Christians are atheistic toward the Muslim god and visa versa so the "salvation" of any given person is not a known factor. The Christian takes an extreme chance in the acceptance without question of a particular god, as they may be against the actual god that exists daily in their respect of an entity that has not been demonstrated to be god.

 

Laws of science show that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

 

Laws of science, the actual ones that exist not the ancient dogmatisms of creationistic wet dreams, demonstrate that evolutionary development of life took place and not that any special creation took place. In this the evidence against the literal biblegod is demonstrated and thus it is unlikely that anyone should accept such an advent as a belief, much less even as a "truth" especially when trying to claim that their god is the way to truth.

[Guest AscendoTuumDeus]

Joseph above me answered the questions pretty well, but...

1. It seems as if Christians can only read one small part of a list, either they would have avoided this. M Theory should explain this, since it gives the big bang a cause through a parallel universe colliding with ours; that question should be thrown out. Also, it is the question of a widespread hypocrisy; if matter can not be spontaneously created from nothing, then how do you explain God?

2. "Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously." The second law explained for those Christians who try to use it again.

3. "The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules." (Laughs). Creationist lies. Now, you can see how far they go...

4. Using the law of causality is a double-edged sword since the God that Christianity did not have a cause, therefore violates the law of causality; they are just being hypocrites when they use that against Atheism or Agnosticism (well, anything for that matter).

5. Most of this has been said by Joseph, but I will repeat; the human has things that it doesn't even use! Why the hell would an omnipotent and omniscient god give a human a useless organ such as tonsils? Sigh... or did they Christians forget about tonsils... Never mind they *ignored* them, like they do the evidence.

M Theory can answer most of the questions as well, therefore the five questions mean nothing...

Tell them they need to find some new questions...

Better yet...

FIVE QUESTIONS TO ASK A CHRISTIAN

1. God is omnipotent, therefore he can create a rock bigger than he can carry, correct? Therefore, God is not omnipotent since there is a limit to how strong he is, or there is a limit to what he can create if he cannot create the rock.

2. God also violates the law of noncontradiction (which is a real law), and the law of identity (another real law). He can be three people yet one person (violates the law of identity which states A=A, B=B, and dog cannot be a cat at the same time it is a dog; if we were to say it doesn't exist, then one is saying that I can be a man and a woman at the same time, I can be my friend and myself at the same time, A is not equal to A, B is not equal to be, and conversation is meaningless), and also the law of noncontradiction by being omnipotent, and being all-merciful and all-just (if this law doesn't exist, I can be in a market and at home at the same time).

3. Tell me why no evidence exists for the historical Jesus that was written while he was living. Why did none of the major historians existing while he was record him while he was alive (Tacitus and Josephus wrote after the fact)?

4. Tell me why a book written at least under the influence of a diety has so many contradictions and discrepancies?

5. Finally, why does an all-good, omniscient god, put a that stupid tree in the Garden of Eve when he knew that he would end up throwing them out, as well as creating people just to be killed (since God knows everything, and killed people that he himself creates?

Give that to a Christian...

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. TalkOrigins Claim: CB000

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html