Atheist

on September 4, 2009 in Atheism, Christian, evolution, God

When I ask an atheist a question I usually get an angry, arrogant, diatribe because I am violating his/her first “assumption”. For example, not a perfect example, If I asked an atheist “what is in this bottle?” And let’s say it was water. The atheist may assume its vodka. He then would tell me it is clear, it is liquid, it is in a bottle, the culture of that time was known to put vodka in bottles, etc. He could then go into great detail using science to prove it was indeed liquid, or build a solid case that the culture of that day bottled their vodka and so on. If at any point I tested the contents of the bottle and said I think it is water, I am ridiculed as stupid and dishonest by the atheist. An honest atheist will have to admit dating methodologies, the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are built upon “significant” assumptions and that these assumptions have not been validated to this date. This should allow for continued questioning.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Atheist”

  1. Jon says:

    “When I ask an atheist a question I usually get an angry, arrogant, diatribe because I am violating his/her first ‘assumption’.”

    I take it that you are referring to the particularly anonymous and impersonal forum of the internet? After all, the majority of atheists I see in the interviews you post on YouTube are quite civil.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    “For example, not a perfect example, If I asked an atheist ‘what is in this bottle?’ And let’s say it was water. The atheist may assume its vodka. He then would tell me it is clear, it is liquid, it is in a bottle, the culture of that time was known to put vodka in bottles, etc. He could then go into great detail using science to prove it was indeed liquid, or build a solid case that the culture of that day bottled their vodka and so on. If at any point I tested the contents of the bottle and said I think it is water, I am ridiculed as stupid and dishonest by the atheist.”

    Why would the atheist’s position be analogous jumping to a conclusion without empirical testing? After all, such testing is the basis of the scientific method. To reject empirical data simply because one’s assumptions conflict with it is the exact opposite of the scientific method. And since the supernatural is not empirical, how would the position that a deity exists be analogous to the result of empirical testing?

    ——————————————————————————————-

    “An honest atheist will have to admit dating methodologies, the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are built upon ‘significant’ assumptions and that these assumptions have not been validated to this date.”

    That is incorrect. I have already explained in your post called ‘Evolution’ how the models of common ancestry and evolution have been confirmed, but as for the other two:

    The Big Bang

    There is a precise correlation between the distance and velocity of galaxies that shows space to be expanding. The core of the Big Bang model is simply based on a back-extrapolation of that movement. And there are many other observations that show the model to be correct; such as confirmation of the prediction that there should be leftover background radiation with a wavelength stretched to the point that it appears as blackbody at 2.71 degrees Kelvin.

    Radiometric Dating

    There are only two prerequisites for radiometric dating to be accurate, and both have been confirmed:

    1) The starting ratio of parent-daughter radioisotopes must be identified. There are over a dozen radiometric dating methods, and the means of identification is different for each, but to give a couple examples:

    a) In carbon-carbon dating, the original C-12 / C-14 ratio generated by the sun’s radiation hitting the earth’s atmosphere is determined by testing trees against the dendrochronological dates—and even against corroboratory historical documents, in some cases.

    b) In uranium-lead dating, the original U-238 / Pb-206 and U-235 / Pb-207 is determined by examining the consistent ratio of Pb-204 (not part of any decay process) to Pb-206 and Pb-207, and by measuring the amounts of the 5 elements in each sample. (U-Pb dating is one of the most accurate, and is actually two separate methods that corroborate one another. It shows that the earth and early solar system are 4.545 billion years old. I can explain this method in much greater depth, if you would like.)

    2) The decay rates must be constant. Decay rates have been measured while being subjected to wide range of temperatures, pressure, etc, and no change in decay rate has ever been detected. But despite this fact, what if the idea is posed that they were in fact so much faster in the past as to account for what would otherwise be billions of years of decay in just a few thousand or hundred thousand years?

    Well, only about 20% of the heat that keeps the earth’s interior molten is from its formation; with the remaining 80% the result of ongoing radioactive decay. With a past decay rate increased enough to account for the observed daughter radioisotopes, the earth would not have the thin, cooled crust it has—it would be completely molten.
    So not only does all the data unanimously point to constant decay rates, but if they were significantly different, the universe would be very different than it is. The earth simply cannot be only thousands or millions of years old.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    “This should allow for continued questioning.”

    Even though your premise that these models are unverified is false, I think we should all continue questioning everything. We should just be sure to look at as much data as we can, and be aware of the sources we are using.

Leave a Reply