On the 3rd of March, 2018, the YouTube channel
LoveAllah328, on behalf of Incognito Islamic
Productions, published a video titled “Questions
No Atheist Can Answer”, and within it…
well, the title’s pretty self-explanatory
right?
“Do you not see how those who dispute Allah
signs are turned away from the right path?
[…] The atheist has nothing but nothing;
nothing but believing in trivialities and
impossibilities.”
“Now that sounds good enough to be a Monty
Python sketch.
This parrot is no more!”
They asked… or more accurately asserted,
that there’s nine questions that no atheists
can answer, and not surprisingly, each was
riddled with fallacies... this, is Questions
No Atheist Can Answer – Answered! Or... Debunked.
So before we delve into the video, and in
the pursuit of being succinct, I want to refresh
you of a few logical fallacies (because, to
be blunt, within this video they’re oh so
abundant).
The first is the Argument from Ignorance fallacy,
which occurs when someone asserts that because
we don’t know or understand something, this
somehow validates their assumed conclusion
– and it most often takes the form of “We
don’t know X, therefore Y”, such as “We
don’t know how the pyramids were built,
therefore aliens”.
The second is the Personal Incredulity fallacy,
which occurs when someone personally doesn’t
understand something and therefore asserts
that it’s false.
For example, “We (meaning I) don’t know
or understand the evidence for natural selection,
therefore there is no evidence for natural
selection.”
And the third is a Non-Sequitur fallacy, which
occurs when a conclusion doesn’t follow
from its premises – such as “People died
from cancer before cigarettes were invented...
therefore, smoking doesn't cause cancer”.
Anyhow, with these fallacies in mind, let’s
get on with it: “What are the questions
that no atheist will be able to answer?
A) How did existence emerge out of no space
and no time?
How can an atheist assume that his atheism
is valid when the moment of the start of existence
is a stark proof on the creativity of the
creator and his ability to originate existence?”
Okay, so there’re several problems here.
The first is that this is an Argument from
Ignorance, the second is that it’s an implicit
Black and White fallacy, and the third is
that it’s a Non-Sequitur.
Put simply, it’s “We don't know how the
universe began, therefore Allah”, but more
specifically it’s “Because atheists don’t
know how the universe began, therefore the
only other alternative (that being Allah)
is validated”.
The problem, of course, is that even if atheists
had no answer to this question (assuming that
it’s a justified question, which it isn’t),
this wouldn’t someone validate the existence
of Allah.
Furthermore, an atheist is simply someone
who isn’t convinced that a god exists, and
so while irreligious people like myself are
atheists, technically so too are Buddhists
and many other religious and spiritual people
– who, like Muslims, insist on a creation
myth.
“B) How did no life transform into life?
How did matter mutate from lifelessness into
living cell?
With all our techniques and advancements we
cannot, till this very moment, originate the
simplest form of life, so how can we explain
the origination of life in the dead matter?
Wouldn't we have been at least able to originate
a form of life that supersedes the one that
originated in the dead matter by at least
a million times?”
Now just like the previous question, this
is an overt Argument from Ignorance, implicit
Black and White fallacy, and a Non-Sequitur,
and because of this it suffers all the same
problems.
It’s “We don’t know how life emerged,
therefore Allah”.
Furthermore, depending on the definition of
“life”, we actually know a great deal
about its origin, and have even created amino
acids (which are the building blocks of life)
numerous times.
And what's more, Muslims, like all religious
people, don't actually know the answer to
this question (and while we're at it, nor
do they know the answer to most of the questions
within this video), they just assert that
they do… and they treat the atheist’s
humility of admitting that they don't know
as a weakness, when really it's a strength.
Pretending to know something that you don’t
know isn’t a virtue.
“C).
How can the atheist argue against the annihilation
of all mankind?
What is the rational substantial and scientific
evidence an atheist can present to prove that
annihilation of all mankind is a mistake?
The material world knows no right and wrong,
so annihilation of mankind must be equal to
keeping them alive from their perspective.”
So this question pertains to morality, which,
of course, has nothing to do with atheism.
An atheist is simply someone who isn’t convinced
that a god exists… that’s it – and so
each and every atheist derives their sense
of morality from alternative sources.
Some atheists adhere to religious edicts (such
as those who’re Buddhists), others adhere
to no objective morality whatsoever (such
as moral relativists), and others (such as
myself) adhere to the Moral Landscape.
Or to put it another way, asking “What scientific
evidence can an atheist present to prove that
the annihilation of mankind is a mistake?”
is like asking “What scientific evidence
can a non-stamp-collector present to prove
that rats dream”… it’s a ridiculous
question that stinks of ignorance.
“D) Atheism assumes that human beings are
just animals who came into existence after
a long and slow sequence of evolution from
meaner beings – so what if a higher being
came into existence?
Will it have the right to put us all in cages
and use us as lab rats?
The Darwinist answer that we derived from
matter is yes – so what's the purpose from
protecting mankind or providing them with
meaning or purpose when it comes to atheism?
Atheism here is unable to explain the reality
of man.”
Okay, so there're two things to respond to
here.
The first is no, atheism doesn't assume that
humans are animals... again, all atheism pertains
to is to whether or not someone is convinced
that a god exists.
Sure, most atheists accept the overwhelming
evidence that we’re mammals, but this is
simply because most atheists don’t insist
on an iron-aged contradicting myth, and so
they have no conflict.
And as for the question about “higher beings”
having dominion over us, I can only speak
myself (because, again, atheists don’t necessarily
share my sense of morality), but I would say
“No, it would not be moral for them to put
us in cages”, because I'm convinced that
entities should have rights according to their
sentience, and so just as I argue that it’s
immoral for us to exploit animals (and especially
those with sophisticated nervous systems),
so too would I argue that it would be immoral
for “higher beings” to exploit us.
Oh, and another thing, there’s no such thing
as “higher beings” in evolution – all
species are equally a branch.
“E) What if, according to evolution, we
proved that one race is higher than the other?
Will the higher race be entitled to transform
the lesser race into used matter (as we do
with the lesser insects or animals)?
Again, the Darwinist answer is yes, this very
argument is enough to obliterate atheism from
any mind that utilizes common sense.
Since the only criteria to judge who was better
than who is the criterion of God fairing this;
not by colour, or strength.”
Now this is pretty much a repeat of the last
question, and it suffers all the same problems,
and so let me make this crystal clear – there
is no such thing as a “higher being”,
“race” or “species” in evolution – all
variations simply represent a differing branch.
Sure, some species are apex predators, and
can be seen as higher on the food chain, but
that doesn’t make them “evolutionarily
higher”, and what’s more, if someone was
to assert that things ought be as they are
in nature, then they’d be committing an
Appeal to Nature fallacy – which, if you’d
done your research, you’d know that almost
no makes such an assertion (let alone atheists).
“F) Atheists argue that morals are relative—“
Okay, so I’m going to straight-up cut and
skip this question because it’s a strawman.
Though, I must say, and to be fair, that it
goes on make some good points (which I actually
agree with) against moral relativists, but
since I’m an atheist and I’m not a moral
relativist, this fact alone nullifies the
assertion that “atheists argue that morals
are relative”.
“G) How did the amazing constants of physics
emerge?
All of these constants entail very intricate
differences that must never vary, even by
the slightest or minutest fraction, or the
whole universe would collapse.
For instance, the cosmological constant is
fine-tuned to 120 decimal places and if it
was one decimal more or less the whole universe
would collapse.
This precision proves that accuracy of a great
maker, noting that the constants are numerous
in physics and all of them, are intricately
precise.”
So there’s a lot to reply to here, and no
way that I can see to do it succinctly and
yet sufficiently, and so if this argument
particularly grasps you then please consider
digesting my two videos dedicated fine-tuning
and improbability, which I’ve linked to
in the description.
But to put the whole fine-tuning nonsense
into perspective, here’s Douglas Adam’s
superb “sentient puddle”: “It's rather
like a puddle waking up (I know they don't
normally do this, but allow me - I'm a science-fiction
writer) - a puddle wakes up one morning and
thinks 'this is a very interesting world I
find myself in... it fits me very neatly.
In fact, it fits me so neatly...
I mean, really precise isn't it?
It must've been made to have me in it.
And the sun rises and is continuing to narrate
the story about this whole being made to have
me in it.
The sun rises and gradually the puddle is
shrinking and shrinking and shrinking and
by the time the puddle ceases to exist it's
still thinking… it's still trapped in this
idea the whole is there for it.
And if we think the world is here for us,
we will continue to destroy it in the way
that we've been destroying it.”
“H).
How did the genome emerge within the living
cells?
A code must require a coder, and this genome
designates what each cell will be used for…
doesn't this prove that there is a unique
maker dictating very specific codes?”
I warned you that there’re a lot of fallacies
within this video, didn’t I?
The first part of this “question” is an
Argument from Ignorance (and, again, an implicit
Black and White fallacy), because it’s “We
don’t know how the genome emerged within
living cells, therefore Allah”, and the
second part is an indirect Personal Incredulity
fallacy, because while we refer to DNA as
a language it’s not a language in the colloquial
sense, and it’s very clearly “written”
(which is another loaded term) by natural
selection.
Or to put it another way, those who assert
that genetic codes are deliberate instructions
are either ignorant or intentionally perpetuating
nonsense.
“I) Where did morality and values come from?
When it comes to atheism, atheism sees the
universe as tumultuous sea of atoms.
That makes no sense and have no purpose, which
was one of the driving motives to immorality
and depravity, but since morality does exist,
then atheism is invalid.”
Yeah… we’ve already addressed this, haven’t
we?
For the last time, some atheists believe that
morality comes from a non-theist religious
source, others believe it’s a cultural construct,
and others see it as the realisation that
we’re born with the capacity to feel pain
and the desire to avoid it.
“To sum up our argumentation against atheism,
since there is light then there has to be
a source for this light—“ Sure, that’s
reasonable.
--since there is shade then there has to be
a body causing the shade—“ A body?
I hope you’re not jumping from something
to someone without sufficient reason?
“--Since there are intricate objects, starting
from the quarks and ending with the galaxies,
then there has to be an originator.”
… what do you mean by “originator”?
“The Quranic argumentation is the strongest
ever.”
“I knew it!”
“Those who reject the book and that with
which we sent our messengers shall soon know.”
Ah, what a nice subtle threat to end with…
believe that the “The Quranic argumentation
is the strongest ever” or burn for eternity
for using the brain that this “loving god”
allegedly gave you…
“Now that sounds good enough to be a Monty
Python sketch.
This parrot is no more!”
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the
view, and extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those of you who’ve donated
via PayPal – you rock!
Oh, and “Good news everyone!”
In celebration of hitting a mile stone I’m
going to create a new series, and I’m more
than open to suggestions, and so if you have
one, then please leave a comment.
So far I have two, the first is tentatively
called “Analysed Arguments”, and it will
consist of me analysing debates (old and new)
to reveal the logical fallacies and flaws
committed by the participants; and the second
is tentatively called “Logical Fallacies”
and it will consist of me explaining in great
detail (and with many examples) a logical
fallacy per episode.
If you like the sound of any of these ideas,
or have a suggestion yourself, then please
don’t hesitate to let me know!
I’d love to hear it.
Until next time my fellow apes, until next
time.
