So you don't believe those things, of course not. But others do.
Who are those people? Are they here on the forum? Who are you talking about?
Note also how you tend to use generalized terms to refer to "them" and try your best to make it seem that it is pretty much every atheist.
I claim that you'll be very hard pressed to find someone, atheist or otherwise, to commit to the wording you are trying to push here.
Not all are unbelievers. Some want to be good little historians and do what the other historians do and make it a science question with the same presuppositions of science.
So you're just going to add another accusatory claim on top of it?
Now you're also accusing religious historians of simply going along with the other historians for ...what? Reputation purposes or something?
Your psychological defenses are really something else.
No acceptance of the supernatural until the supernatural is shown to be real.
Isn't that the rational thing to do?
What's the alternative? Accepting X is real while there is no evidence to show it is real? Claims are to be believed by default until proven false?
Should we also apply this warped logic in court? The accused is considered guilty until proven innocent?
So all I have to do is accuse you of murder and then by default you should be treated as a murderer and jailed for life until you can show you are innocent?
"the burden of proof" - have you ever heard of that concept?
Claimed witness accounts, observations, are not evidence for the supernatural until they can be verified scientifically, whatever that may be.
Indeed.
Again, what alternative do you propose? That we simply accept all claims by default?
So we should simply believe the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, voodoo victims, loch ness monster spotters, time travelers, incarnations of napoleon, ... etc?
Or let me guess.... we should only lower our standards of evidence to the point that no evidence is required when it comes to the claims of your particular religion / beliefs?
OK so seeing the risen Jesus and speaking to Him and seeing Him ascend to heaven is like you seeing something moving in the sky and claiming it is a UFO? Hmmm.
So do you believe the claims of alien abductees and bigfoot spotters at face value also?
You don't care. Like you have no reason to look it up.
Indeed. Much like you likely don't care about how and when the Quran was compiled. Or the Bagavad ghita. Or the book of the dead. Or the iliad. Or Dianetics. Or the book of Mormons Or the scriptures of any of the other hundreds, if not thousands, of religions.
Don't act so surprised that the book of your particular religion gets the same treatment from me.
But yes it is reasonable as a non expert to tentatively accept the consensus of experts when it comes to scientific subjects. And that is what people do with subjects like consciousness and origins of life etc. Science say all the evidence points to chemistry, who are we to disagree.
You say it is reasonable and then completely ignore, or show ignorance, as to WHY it is reasonable.
It is reasonable because science
does not require you to "just believe" what scientists say.
If there is consensus about a certain hypothesis / theory, then you are NOT required or limited to just accept the claims of scientists.
No. These hypothesis / theories are going to be
documented as a matter of public record in scientific publications / papers. There, you can read ALL ABOUT IT,
including the justification for it. The evidence, the experiments, the demonstrations.
Furthermore, knowing how the scientific process works, you will also KNOW that that article isn't "just" the words and claims of the author. Instead, you know that it has been scrutinized by PLENTY of other scientists who did their outmost best to tear the idea apart and show it to be false. It's what they do. Scientists are on eachothers' case like hawks.
As the saying goes: "
fame and glory in science is reserved for those people who show all their collegues wrong"
So.... the fact that all the evidence points to chemistry is not just some statement by some scientist. It is a CONCLUSION from the data. A conclusion that's been validated and reviewed by many many other scientists, who have incentive to prove the original author wrong whenever possible.
This is why consensus in science is so powerful. It means that those in the field that attempted to disprove the idea, failed to do so.
No, that doesn't mean the idea is necessarily correct. It does mean that it is supported by verifiable evidence and that it is quite solid in explanatory power.
The more such verifiable evidence it gathers, and the more attempts fail to try and disprove it, the more likely and solid the idea becomes.
So that's where your "problem" of consciousness and abiogenesis situates itself. An ongoing accumulation of supporting evidence and repeated failed attempts at disproving it. And literally zero valid alternative idea's.
So yeah.... not sure what else to tell you.
If you start out believing that what is written is a lie made up after 70AD, you cannot be neutral about when the gospels were written and you certainly are not neutral about the supernatural.
You double down on your already corrected mistake.
Your statement is false.
Nobody "started out" believing that. That they were written after 70AD is a CONCLUSION drawn AFTER doing to research. Not before it.
So presumptions about the truth or not of the prophecy should not be used to date the writing of the gospel.
Those historians who believe in the truth of the prophecy do not use that belief to date the writing of the gospels,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they use everything but that.
Those "historians" aren't proper historians. They are biased believers who are attempting to paint the bullseye around the arrow.
They engage in EXACTLY the mistake that you accuse proper historians off.
The first thing used by those who deny the prophecy is the 70AD date and that the writing must be close to or after that date.
And no, it is not a matter of "not accepting it (the prophecy) right out the gates", it is a matter of dismissing the prophecy from the beginning because science does not know of the supernatural.
Ever heard the sentence "assumed innocent until shown guilty"?
The same concept applies here.
You are buthurt and like to play the "religion victim card".
The fact of the matter is that all claims get the same treatment. Supernatural or otherwise.
All claims are evaluated based on merrit, precedents, plausibility, etc.
Claims involving the supernatural or other types of magic are "right out the gates" extremely implausible.
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.