Atheism is Irrational
Aug 9, 2020 0:10:30 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Aug 9, 2020 0:10:30 GMT -5
Atheism is Irrational
What makes atheism extremely irrational is its stubborn refusal to concede even the slightest possibility of a creator as if the idea or concept of a creator were totally unjustifiable and the epitome of absurdity. Why is this attitude irrational? Well, simple. It's irrational because it demands the denial of the compelling evidence of a creative mind in nature despite the very compelling evidence that supports the involvement of a creative mind.
For example, atheism demands that we ignore the biological nano-machines which repair damage to the DNA strands despite it indicating damage-expectation and specific meticulous preparation for such damage. If indeed damage to the DNA was not anticipated then why did these reparatory machines emerge? Denying planning in relation to this is similar to claiming that fire escapes and sprinkler systems in buildings have absolutely no connection to planning minds.
This identical anticipatory defensive design on a nanoscale can be detected in our immune system which records the appearance of a pathogen and creates antibodies in response to them. Are we supposed to believe these also mindlessly designed themselves? That all this coordination among different organs just happened by chance?
Adopting that kind of mentality demands placing our critical thinking on hold only when evidence indicates a creator. However, once nature ceases to be involved, then our minds are cunningly supposed to resume their usual logical functions in attributing design to all other things which show evidence of design. In short, we are expected to be prejudiced whenever our observations indicate a creative mind only. Such a way of thinking is referred to as inconsistency of policy and is placed under the category of fallascious or defective thinking.
Regardless of the educational credentials of those who subscribe to that flawed Modus Operandi, that kind of chicanery is not scientific. Science involves a search for facts based on evidence regardless of where such evidence might lead. But if we accept only facts which agree with our preconceptions and petulantly and arbitrarily reject all others, then we are not practicing science at all but quackery. In short, we become quacks posturing as scientists and nothing more and are proving ourselves totally unworthy of trust.
For example, atheism demands that we ignore the biological nano-machines which repair damage to the DNA strands despite it indicating damage-expectation and specific meticulous preparation for such damage. If indeed damage to the DNA was not anticipated then why did these reparatory machines emerge? Denying planning in relation to this is similar to claiming that fire escapes and sprinkler systems in buildings have absolutely no connection to planning minds.
This identical anticipatory defensive design on a nanoscale can be detected in our immune system which records the appearance of a pathogen and creates antibodies in response to them. Are we supposed to believe these also mindlessly designed themselves? That all this coordination among different organs just happened by chance?
Adopting that kind of mentality demands placing our critical thinking on hold only when evidence indicates a creator. However, once nature ceases to be involved, then our minds are cunningly supposed to resume their usual logical functions in attributing design to all other things which show evidence of design. In short, we are expected to be prejudiced whenever our observations indicate a creative mind only. Such a way of thinking is referred to as inconsistency of policy and is placed under the category of fallascious or defective thinking.
Regardless of the educational credentials of those who subscribe to that flawed Modus Operandi, that kind of chicanery is not scientific. Science involves a search for facts based on evidence regardless of where such evidence might lead. But if we accept only facts which agree with our preconceptions and petulantly and arbitrarily reject all others, then we are not practicing science at all but quackery. In short, we become quacks posturing as scientists and nothing more and are proving ourselves totally unworthy of trust.