this post was submitted on
231 points (73% like it)
358 up votes 127 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,120,766 readers

2,798 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

230
231

Why atheists have problems accepting the simple truth... I'll never know. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by CCDubs

all 36 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]jdscarface 17 points18 points ago

There's more to this picture.

[–]CCDubs[S] 3 points4 points ago

As a Canadian, this makes me happy.

[–]jdscarface 2 points3 points ago

Me too, haha. Also as an atheist because we embrace knowledge.

[–]CCDubs[S] 1 point2 points ago

Indeed!

[–]Kind_Of_A_Dick 2 points3 points ago

That's actually a different picture.

[–]jdscarface 1 point2 points ago

I suppose it is.

Same idea though. Point being, atheists don't think it happened by chance while religious folk will still claim that their god is responsible in some way.

[–]cymrich 2 points3 points ago

pretty sure they switched the picture just to avoid that argument because they failed so miserably before.

[–]seeBurtrun 3 points4 points ago

It happened over millions of years, christians think it happened in 7 days, but I get your point.

[–]Quazz 1 point2 points ago

That's actually a manmade lake...

[–]sweYoda 1 point2 points ago

Also, being an atheist doesn't imply that you believe that the universe happened by chance nor do you believe that things after the 'birth' of the universe happens by chance. Just because I can't describe how every single atom got to where it is today doesn't mean it happened by "chance".

[–]JimDixon 0 points1 point ago

Reminds me of a running joke we used to have in an office where I once worked.

Whenever someone said, "I think …" (as in "I think I saw those papers around here somewhere"), the boss would puff himself with all the pomposity he could muster and say: "Around here, we don't think – we know" – to which someone would always reply: "Yeah, I don't think you know either."

(In other words, the boss was deliberately setting up the joke.)

[–]youhavetakenmysoul 0 points1 point ago

Unless you are an uneducated idiot atheist, no you don't think it happened in one day. If you look at mountains, the layers CLEARLY show that they were made slowly for millions of years with sediment build up. If there was some way to cut all the layers off you would most likely find fossils and possibly people that lived when the mountain was still growing. Like a human, it takes a while. But we are not thousands of feet high, and that is why we grow quicker. That picture = solved by a thirteen year old atheist.

[–]pillo25 0 points1 point ago

You said made! So you believe that someone made mountains! This someone is God!

[–]youhavetakenmysoul 0 points1 point ago

Not once did I say that. Something could be made by the universe. Like earth weather and many more things. Just because I said it was made does not necicerally mean it was by a person.

[–]pillo25 0 points1 point ago

I suppose Poe's Law is still in effect, even in the Reddit community...

[–]mustard24 0 points1 point ago

I'll just say that this was caused by erosion and glaciers... Just saying...

[–]kenzie14 0 points1 point ago

Plus, being an atheist doesn't mean you believe ANYTHING. You could be an atheist and believe that you pooped the world out of your chin's butthole.

[–]djoh91 0 points1 point ago

natural selection is not a random process, ergo those trees and plants in that picture didn't "just happen by chance one day"..

[–]wazzym 0 points1 point ago

Straw Man Argument

[–]GiPwner 0 points1 point ago

Both of those are false analogies and should be discredited. If you start and argument with an ad-hominem, then you are not worth arguing with since you have already failed.

[–]Volsunga 6 points7 points ago

Both are facetious and were made by trolls in 4chan. It is not a false analogy, it is not an ad hominem. It is a straw man.

[–]GiPwner 0 points1 point ago

I know where it comes from. It's as old as the internet. Were it not fictitious my point would still stand.

[–]Volsunga 2 points3 points ago

Not really since you don't know what "false analogy" and "ad hominem" mean.

[–]GiPwner -2 points-1 points ago

It would seem you don't, not me.

[–]pillo25 0 points1 point ago

Where is the false analogy? Attributing an explanation is not a false analogy.

Where is the ad-hominem? Nobody was insulted here.

Where're the straw men? "Atheists think this just happened by chance one day," and "Christians know a wizard did it." GiPwner wins. The whole thing is a straw man.

[–]Shamanofthesea -2 points-1 points ago

Um...is no one going to point out this is a man made lake? The irony burns.

[–]WKHowIGotTheseScars 2 points3 points ago

It's not really that. It's glacially fed.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points ago

H.S. Lipson

  • "In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Burton, Alan

  • "The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is religion,' notscience,' with him."

Paul Davies

  • [The Big Bang] “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle---transcending physical principles….”

Wernher von Braun quoted by James Perloff

  • “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

G.A. Kerkut

  • "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."

Paul Lemoine

  • “The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.”

T. Rosazak

  • "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance."

L.N. Matthews

  • "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?"

Judith Hooper

  • "Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."

J.W.N. Sullivan

  • "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."

Harrison Matthews.

  • [The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."

Hannes Alfvén

  • [The Big Bang] “…is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being….”

[–]Iazo 2 points3 points ago*

Who are those people. I've tried searching more about them, and the internets is strangely quiet about them.

H. S. Lipson - Wikipedia didn't show me anything, Google showed me a list of pro-creationist sites, and I could not find any independent sources to attest that he's a physicist, that the attended the University of Manchester, or indeed, that he ever uttered that phrase. The phrase, itself, is stupid. : "I don't know, therefore God." I have a counter-quote for that: "I don't know, therefore the Juju Monkey." See how that works?

Burton, Alan. - Wikipedia showed me the bio of a footballer(?), Google showed me the pages of random people named Alan Burton. Looks to me that the quotation is either a complete fabrication, or a quotation of a random guy on the street. Not impressed.

Paul Davies - Wikipedia shows him as being a scientist, and by holding a philosophical criticism of science by claiming it is not as fallacious-free as he would like it to be. I, however, could not track down that precise quote. The fact that it is truncated at BOTH ends makes me suspect out-of context quoting at best, and outright fabrication at worst.

Werner von Braun - He's pretty well documented, but I could not find any independent confirmation of that quote, other than by that Perloff guy, of whom Wikipedia is quiet, and of which Goggle has to say that he's a Christian apologetics author(!?). Do you thing /atheism is comprised of utter morons?

G. A. Kerkut - Finally, one who seems legitimate.

Paul Lemoine - The quote is accurate, but pulled out of context, it seems. He was an atheist, and he did have objections to the theory of evolution. The problem is that it's been over 70 years since he died, and over 90 years since he's been active as a geologist. This means that a) he did not endorse any brand of fairy-tailism, including magical sky-wizards doing it and b) his criticisms of the theory of evolution may be outdated.

T. Rosazak- Apart from self-serving creationist sites, there's no evidence of this individual (or his quote) ever existing. I did find a historian called Theodore Roszak, but biology and history (especially recent history, his apparent area of expertise), don't mix. If your post was an appeal to authority, it failed miserably here.

L. N. Matthews - This individual does not appear anywhere on the internet. It's as if ...gasp... he's been made up. dun-dun-dunnnn

Judith Hooper - A journalist. Could not track down the quote. Even if I could, quoting random journalists is not impressive.

JWN Sullivan - Journalist, fiction writer, and an author of a treatise on Beethoven(?). Also, could not find that quote that you presented. I, however, did find this quote: "For every living creature that succeeds in getting a footing in life there are thousands or millions that perish. There is an enormous random scattering for every seed that comes to life. This does not remind us of intelligent human design. If a man in order to shoot a hare, were to discharge thousands of guns on a great moor in all possible directions; if in order to get into a locked room, he were to buy ten thousand casual keys, and try them all; if, in order to have a house, he were to build a town, and leave all the other houses to wind and weather - assuredly no one would call such proceedings purposeful and still less would anyone conjecture behind these proceedings a higher wisdom, unrevealed reasons, and superior prudence." - Welp, fancy that.

Harrison Matthews - a) quote is truncated, possibly out of context, andn even if not: b) could not find that quote at all (what a surprise).

Hannes Alfven - Controversial scientist, that. However, you are putting words into his mouth. Here's the entire quote.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago. " - Why, would you look at that. He seems to reject both Big Bang and Creationism. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? Points for cutting off precisely the important bit at the end. Just the type of tactics Christfags use.

TL;DR Imaginary people, fabricated quotes, and quotes pulled out of context. Of all of them, maybe two (?) are an accurate representation.

The above list is a collection of lies.

[–]WhoMouse 0 points1 point ago

Thank you so very much for doing that, and then pasting it here! Now I don't have to do it myself, then forget to document them as I go and fail to paste it for others' benefit. :)

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

Darwin, Charles

  • "He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?"

Darwin, Charles

  • "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University]

  • "In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all."

Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London]

  • "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."

  • ".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?'

Brouwer, A. [Professor of Stratigraphy and Palaeontology, University of Leiden, Netherlands]

  • "One of the most surprising negative results of palaeontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the palaeontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."

Gould, Stephen J

  • "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Woodroff, D.S

  • "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."

Futuyma, D

  • "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors."

    Steven M. Stanley [paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.]

  • The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition.

Stephen Jay Gould [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA]

  • "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."

Charles Darwin to Asa Gray

  • “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.”

[–]Iazo 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, see, how about coming up with explanations for the FIRST batch of gross misinformation you copy-pasted from your favourite Christian Apologetics site, before I sink another hour into scouring the internet for truncated, misattributed, and out-of context quotes, hmmmm?

I've got important stuff to do, like upvoting kittens in /aww. And you have to explain the first batch of misinformation, before I take you seriously.

[–]trg0819 0 points1 point ago

I often find that looking at a user's history allows me to judge whether or not I should take them seriously before spending any amount of time talking to them. In this case, you would have found -1000 karma due to posts about aliens visiting on Dec 21 this year, other conspiracy theories, bible quotes, and apparently Satan is the reason behind everything, including 9/11 and the Catholic Church... Either a troll or an idiot.

[–]parttimehuman 3 points4 points ago

Too bad for your argument we don't live in the 19th century and have proven his theory several times over.

[–]kent_eh 2 points3 points ago*

Didn't you post the same out of date and out of context list about a week ago, trying to poke holes in evolution?

Edit:

Damn, you've been a busy boy Mr ArizonaIced.

You have been dumping this same wall of text into every evolution thread that you can find for a while now.

No matter how much you repeat it, it's still out of date, obsolete and irrelevant.

[–]BadFengShui 1 point2 points ago

Do you have a point, or did you just feel like quoting a bunch of dead people?

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 17019 on app-04 running 152ff4e.