.jpg)
Ray Comfort, noted (you fill in the blank), has a Web site that he calls “Pull the Plug on Atheism.” His second installment of nonsense is titled, the atheist's creation problem.
Before I begin, I would like to comment on the title. Atheists are not the ones who have a problem with creation. Not at all. Contrary to what Comfort says in his article, atheists, in general, understand the meaning of the word “create.” It is not a difficult to grasp concept.
When an atheist speaks of man creating something, he is using the word "create" incorrectly. Man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, let alone a living breathing entity. Try and think of any human being creating something material from nothing, and I don't mean creating a new breed of bacteria, by manipulating already-existing bacteria.
When atheists speak of man creating something, they are typically using it correctly. They do not use the term as Comfort implies they do. He is misrepresenting intentionally to sell his agenda. The last time I checked, no atheist had claimed that “man created sand from nothing” or living beings. Further, atheists, to my knowledge, do not claim that human beings create “something material from nothing.”
Man may manufacture, manipulate or maneuver, but he cannot create anything material--such as a rock, a leaf, a chicken, a tree, or even a flea, from nothing.
He’s right, for once.
If we know that with all of his genius, man cannot create anything from nothing, how intellectually preposterous is it to actually believe that in the beginning nothing created everything? Atheism is off the charts of human foolishness. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius. That’s why an atheist has no scientific creditably, because his “nothing created everything” violates the basic laws of science.
The first sentence here is a funny one. In one instance he says “man cannot create anything from nothing,” and in the next instant, he says it is impossible to believe that “nothing created everything.” The two contentions are not the same, as he seems to suggest. “Man” and “nothing” are not synonymous. They are both equally “preposterous,” to be sure. But the fact that he tries to draw a parallel between the two to make his case only serves to prove how he will reach at anything, even nonsensical comparisons, to try to discredit atheists.
As is typical of Comfort, he is completely misrepresenting a scientific position. He uses the word “create” to set up his case.
No one I know “believes” that nothing “created” something. It is sad that he cannot support his “beliefs” without making up lies about atheists that he can then pretend to dispute.
Atheists do not need “scientific credibility.” It does not take evidence to not believe something. It is true that many atheists, in their search for answers, explore science and theology. However, neither is necessary to lack a belief in deities.
Atheists do not own the “nothing created everything” ideology as Comfort would have people believe. Comfort and those like him “created” it. They own it. They are the only people I know of who would espouse such nonsense. And they do it for the sole purpose of discrediting atheists through misrepresentation.
He is so redundant. It's funny how many ways he can spin one little phrase. I really think he needs some new material.
Comments
In order to have a helpful dialogue, I believe that we need to not just dispute each others arguments but actually share beliefs. Mr. Comfort does bring up one excellent question, whether you agree with his answer or not: how do Atheists believe creation / matter / the universe came into being?
I get what you are saying but your comments on Mr. Comfort only dispute what he says rather than answering the question he is answering for you. If Atheists don't believe that "nothing created everything" then what do they believe created everything?
epecho, I mean this with all due respect... you seem to be missing the point. The word "create" should not be used here. It is leading in this debate.
Atheists do not typically believe that the universe was "created."
@epecho It's not really a case or sharing beliefs. More a case of whether we have a belief or lack of one. Being an atheist I'll reply to your question though. Most think the Big Bang is the most likely explanation, given that the red/blue shift of other galaxies absolutely clearly shows everything is moving away from us, and therefore everything is moving away from everything else too, which means everything moving from a central point in space, mostly likely an explosion. A very simple concept demonstrated by placing dots on a balloon, blowing it up and seeing how the dots move relative to each other. As the balloon expands, all the dots move away from every other dot. And if the fact the other galaxies appear more red due to them moving away from us doesn't make sense, compare it with an ambulance moving away from you. The sound (in this case, but exactly the same concept) will appear lower in pitch - so shifts in the spacing of the electromagnetic waves tell us whether something is moving away or towards us.
Where the matter/energy which triggered the explosion came from is another question and your guess is as good as mine. Proposing a creator did this isn't sensible because that doesn't explain where the creator came from. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "He's just there and always has been" answered nothing and is childish. If you think differently though please share.
Given that science has over time disproved the myths in religious texts and never the other way around, I know where I'm putting my confidence. Religions can't even agree with other religions, including the many incompatible religions in the history of mankind. Science as a concept fundamentally works (you only have to look around you for examples), and scientists disagreeing with each other is part of that concept until proofs/examples are reached and agreement ultimately reached.
Religion on the other hand is ignorant and arrogant by comparison. When the religious don't know the answer to something they invent myths and insist they're truths with no doubts whatsoever. That's the ultimate example of arrogance and ignorance to me, is dishonest at best, and something I'll never be part of. There's a reason why statistically atheists have higher intelligence than theists, and we're no worse off ethically either. The religious are just as likely to do unethical things and there's plenty of examples of that, even among those ingrained in that way of life and very high up the hierarchy. Unless you discount taking drugs, gay sex and child molesting, all unethical according to the religious.
I can identify with the author's frustration of theists inventing arguments out of thin air on behalf of some mysterious atheist, just to give them something to argue against. In all the years I've read religious arguments I've never once come across anything remotely compelling. All the same arguments could be made up about any random mythology I care to dream up on a whim. Most of the arguments could be applied to the tooth fairy and Santa.
The bottom line is religion was born as a convenient way of controlling groups of people. The human mind, vulnerable and imperfect as it is, is probably hardwired to some degree to accept myths without evidence or reasoning. For example, a member of a tribe isn't going to stand much chance of fitting into the group and propagating their genes if they don't subscribe to the groups way of thinking and accepted ethics. Who knows, maybe this phenomena could be reversed over time as humanity gets smarter, and the small pockets of superstitious cults will be the outcasts and less likely to propagate.
I think you misunderstood Comfort's
meaning. He wasn't saying man and nothing are synonymous. Quite the contrary. His point is as follows:
Man is superior to nothing.
Man cannot "create" something.
If the superior man cannot "create"
something, how can the inferior nothing
create somthing?
Instead of simply attacking Comfort, I would have liked to see you tackle the underlying question: Where did our physical universe come from? Comfort seems to believe that if a Supreme Being didn't do it, then atheists must believe matter came from nothing. This is the crux of the issue. Has matter existed for eternity? Did it come from nothing as Comfort claims atheists believe?
As far as some of the other posts go-
evidence of a "big bang" is really a mute issue in regards to the origin of matter and life. It is only of real interest in regards to Einstein's theories which require a universe in motion. Afterall, it is rather inconceivable to have an explosion of some kind without matter, so what makes up our universe must have existed prior to the big bang. Was this matter always there? Was it put/created there?
Psalm 33:6
6By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their host by the breath of His mouth.
The real debate is if you buy the possibility of intelligent design (which I have not discounted) does it necessarily or even remotely follow that the designer(s) are all knowing, benevolent, immortal, or in any way superior? They (it) may simply have a much larger and older database to draw from than we do.
Also it is mathematically possible to create an infinite amount of somethings from nothing. Zero can be expressed as -1 +1, further, the -1 can be broken down to -2 +1, and on, and on, and on.
Just because we don't know how to create a universe doesn't mean it can't be done, by humans or even lesser beings given enough time and accumulated knowledge.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!