Present arguments for atheism

[Revoltingest]

The difference is that science admits, currently, that biogenesis is difficult. It is trying to find something, even if this is a vain attempt.
What theists do is actually make a claim, without trying to find something, and atheists want you to back up that claim with evidence, lest there is none.
We're in the same boat and, until you can prove that you can see dry land, we're heading in the same direction.

Research into abiogenesis is a long process, but there is progress in forming complex molecules useful to life.
This beats research into divine creation. Their experiments & insights are utterly lacking.

 

[Valjean]

But until science can explain how life began and are able to replicate it with basic non-living components, there will always being an argument for theism.

There is a lot of research being done and several hypotheses about the origin of life, and many of the components of life -- amino acids, self-replicating nucleic RNA, cell membranes -- have already created themselves under laboratory conditions.
So it's not that we haven't a clue. We just haven't worked out the details yet or nailed down the original venue, so to speak. You can find a lot of the research with a simple Google search.

You seem to be proposing a false dilemma: If not science then magic (Goddidit).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your examples don't apply as they're understood and observable in science. Nor did I say the mythologies found in religion explains how life truly began or are evidence for the fact. If anything, these many myths supports my one word argument for atheism, Religions, strengthening the argument that because there are thousands of religions, all religion, and therefore god, is simply manmade.

But until science can explain how life began and are able to replicate it with basic non-living components, there will always being an argument for theism.

They didn't always have observable science behind them though, hence the existence of the mythological explanations that once existed for those things.

 

[Ultimatum]

Research into abiogenesis is a long process, but there is progress in forming complex molecules useful to life.
This beats research into divine creation. Their experiments & insights are utterly lacking.

Either way, abiogenesis has happened. Abiogenesis is a fact. Every theist accepts abiogenesis. They can't explain it empirically, neither can we.
Thus, we're in the same boat--floating into nothing.
But, hey, at least some of us are grabbing an oar.

 

[Ultimatum]

There is a lot of research being done and several hypotheses about the origin of life, and many of the components of life -- amino acids, self-replicating nucleic RNA, cell membranes -- have already created themselves under laboratory conditions.
So it's not that we haven't a clue. We just haven't worked out the details yet or nailed down the original venue, so to speak. You can find a lot of the research with a simple Google search.

You seem to be proposing a false dilemma: If not science then magic (Goddidit).

Also remember that the hurdle to overcome in terms of trying to explain abiogenesis comes in the form of experimental conditions. We literally have no idea under what conditions the first self-replicator came to be. In terms of replicating it today, what's to say that those first facilitators haven't just vanished completely?

 

[Revoltingest]

Either way, abiogenesis has happened. Abiogenesis is a fact. Every theist accepts abiogenesis. They can't explain it empirically, neither can we.
Thus, we're in the same boat--floating into nothing.
But, hey, at least some of us are grabbing an oar.

If it is indeed factual (a debatable point), it is the best kind of fact, ie, one we don't understand or know much about.
Thus it is rich in potential for experimentation, theorizing, & improved understanding, ie, it's fascinating!

 

[Iti oj]

Sort of vague. Do you mean the Biblical Deity? That is the Deity I adhere to. Are you saying that mystics cannot adhere to the Biblical Deity?

So the thread is a trap?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

What makes you assume the most primitive self-replicators during origination were the same as they as the most simple self-replicators today?

What makes you assume that the environmental conditions that were exactly right and that the exact combinations needed to make said primite self-replicator would just be able to be made up in a scientific laboratory?

I've often thought something along those lines - that maybe the conditions and components for how life began can never be replicated. If that's the case, there will always be an argument for religion no mater how irrational it might seem.

amino acids, self-replicating nucleic RNA, cell membranes -- have already created themselves under laboratory conditions.

Through the assistance of scientists, right? It's not like a sterile test tube (or even one filled with chemical compounds) suddenly developed cell membranes and self-replicating RNA without some kind of interaction. And even then, we might have a clue how these basic components formed but we don't have a clue what's behind the spark that makes something non-living to living. So until that's figured out, there will always be the argument, yes, god did it. And if you were ever to figure out how life began, the next step will be to figure out how to create matter from nothing.

 

[Desert Snake]

So the thread is a trap?

Meaning what..

 

[Deidre]

Why would I /specifically, the theist position/ have something to prove, and, why would a theist, take that/your, position?

You are not required to prove anything as a theist, but often theists will ask atheists to ‘’prove’’ their position, so that’s the point I was making.

 

[Iti oj]

Meaning what..

Why don't you believe in god?
gives reason .
Well that's not my god so ner ner.

a trap

I gave you a vague answer because you asked a vague question.


Followed by a lack of response to my reasons and ignoring my request for more detail so we could discuss things on a deeper level.

yet it really boils down to it boils down to, "there is no evidence for god, no need for god, and nothing suggest god" .

 

[Revoltingest]

You are not required to prove anything as a theist, but often theists will ask atheists to ‘’prove’’ their position, so that’s the point I was making.

Theists get challenged too.
We should all welcome the opportunity to explain why we believe (or disbelieve) as we do.
If that makes anyone uncomfortable, then one should give this some thought.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've often thought something along those lines - that maybe the conditions and components for how life began can never be replicated. If that's the case, there will always be an argument for religion no mater how irrational it might seem.



Through the assistance of scientists, right? It's not like a sterile test tube (or even one filled with chemical compounds) suddenly developed cell membranes and self-replicating RNA without some kind of interaction. And even then, we might have a clue how these basic components formed but we don't have a clue what's behind the spark that makes something non-living to living. So until that's figured out, there will always be the argument, yes, god did it. And if you were ever to figure out how life began, the next step will be to figure out how to create matter from nothing.

The "god of the gaps" argument has absolutely no explanatory power, and in my opinion, it's a useless and lazy argument.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

The "god of the gaps" argument has absolutely no explanatory power, and in my opinion, it's a useless and lazy argument.

There's nothing wrong with believing in a universe that is explained by science but was developed by the Divine - in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Through the assistance of scientists, right? It's not like a sterile test tube (or even one filled with chemical compounds) suddenly developed cell membranes and self-replicating RNA without some kind of interaction. And even then, we might have a clue how these basic components formed but we don't have a clue what's behind the spark that makes something non-living to living. So until that's figured out, there will always be the argument, yes, god did it. And if you were ever to figure out how life began, the next step will be to figure out how to create matter from nothing.

Scientist set up various conditions thought to replicate conditions where life might have arisen and then watch what happens.

As for living vs non-living, I'm not sure it's an either-or. I think it's more likely there were (are) various types of "lifelike" particles, having certain qualities we attribute to life but not the full-blown panoply we find in 'living' organisms today.

 

[Valjean]

There's nothing wrong with believing in a universe that is explained by science but was developed by the Divine - in my opinion.

No conflict here. Science merely seeks to understand the mechanism of this development.
Science has nothing to say about Who. It only explores How.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Scientist set up various conditions thought to replicate conditions where life might have arisen and then watch what happens.

You mean like an on-going experiment where they've set up and are currently watching it, hoping something happens?

No conflict here. Science merely seeks to understand the mechanism of this development.
Science has nothing to say about Who. It only explores How.

Agreed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's nothing wrong with believing in a universe that is explained by science but was developed by the Divine - in my opinion.

Of course not, but I don't think it has any actual explanatory power at all. It's just a filler.

 

[Valjean]

You mean like an on-going experiment where they've set up and are currently watching it, hoping something happens?

Both ongoing and concluded experiments.
Google-search.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Both ongoing and concluded experiments.
Google-search.

Interesting. I'll check it out.

Of course not, but I don't think it has any actual explanatory power at all. It's just a filler.

Perhaps for you - and that's fine.