Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

That just shows how little you seem to really understand about basic scientific concepts, not to mention insinuating that scientists since then are essentially stupid for even accepting the current prevailing theory when it has supposedly already been "disproven".

It's not that they are stupid so much that they are forced to look for this solution as there is no alternative. It's a pretty basic motivation among man to want answers.

Closer to an agnistic what? You do realize there is no agnosticm in science. Right?

Agnostic in the sense that I'm not committing to an absolute. It's was kind of a metaphor. "I don't know if there is a God."; "I don't know if there is abiogenesis." Don't hate me for being artistic with my wordage :P

Which is exactly why it is currently the prevailing theory instead of a documented fact. And there is indeed quite a bit of "evidence" that it is quite likely true. I suggest you read the Wiki article you posted earlier.

It's the current prevailing theory because there is no alternative to it if there is no God. That's a logical fact. Also, there is actually not quite a bit of evidence. The most evidence for it there is is the Miller-Urey experiment and that is a far cry from anything turning into a living organism.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Wow...I am lost in admiration at the duplicity in this post. Who cares about the dictates of the Koran? Do you? Does the American public? Does Obama? Please.

My point with that was to show that 'Obama is a Muslim' isn't something native to the rightwing fringe.

As a certain duplicitous narrative suggests.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Agnostic in the sense that I'm not committing to an absolute. It's was kind of a metaphor. "I don't know if there is a God."; "I don't know if there is abiogenesis." Don't hate me for being artistic with my wordage :P

I think you're on pretty firm footing with that. You're basically saying that you are agnostic with respect to abiogenesis. You have plenty of company.

In a more perfect world you'd get points for not being selectively skeptical.

Originally Posted by darth omar

My point with that was to show that 'Obama is a Muslim' isn't something native to the rightwing fringe.

As a certain duplicitous narrative suggests.

As a political discourse in the US, it is. Hence the narrative you refer to is not duplicitous in the slightest, you are quite the sophist.

Originally Posted by AdreinXXII

As a political discourse in the US, it is. Hence the narrative you refer to is not duplicitous in the slightest, you are quite the sophist.

A political narrative’s primary function is to paint a picture that serves the party line and is partially true, at best. And what is partially true about the narrative in question is that there is a segment of right wingers who think Obama is a Muslim because he has a Muslim name.

Then there are those right wingers who are aware of that bit of Islamic theology which dictates that Obama IS a Muslim whether he wants to be one or not because he was born to a Muslim father who gave him a Muslim name [‘Barack’ is the name of the steed Mohammed flew up from Jerusalem to Paradise on]. He also attended a madrassa as a kid. And in fact many Muslims across the world think he is one too.

Note that I believe that a person holds the religion they claim to hold but if I were presented with the poll question ’Do you think Obama is a Muslim?’ I would prefer to not answer it all because the answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no.

It is easily complicated enough to skew the data.

Originally Posted by darth omar

A political narrative’s primary function is to paint a picture that serves the party line and is partially true, at best. And what is partially true about the narrative in question is that there is a segment of right wingers who think Obama is a Muslim because he has a Muslim name.

Then there are those right wingers who are aware of that bit of Islamic theology which dictates that Obama IS a Muslim whether he wants to be one or not because he was born to a Muslim father who gave him a Muslim name [‘Barack’ is the name of the steed Mohammed flew up from Jerusalem to Paradise on]. He also attended a madrassa as a kid. And in fact many Muslims across the world think he is one too.

Note that I believe that a person holds the religion they claim to hold but if I were presented with the poll question ’Do you think Obama is a Muslim?’ I would prefer to not answer it all because the answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no.

It is easily complicated enough to skew the data.

Honestly? I think Obama is an atheist.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Honestly? I think Obama is an atheist.

It's kind of ironic that an atheist can't be elected [some say] as president but if they act like anything but an atheist, they're unelectable too.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Umm...I feel like I'm being messed with. Are you honestly saying that the origings of life is....life? I mean, life always existed since forever and all life came from that life? I have never, ever heard that theory being espoused in anything scientific to explain the origins of life. That's closer to theism than atheism.

I thought you said you were familiar with biogenesis. That is the hypothesis that life comes from life. But that is not the issue in this thread.

As regards atheism, I think you are not well informed. If we take the word of leading atheists around the world (the late Christopher Hutchins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, for example) we find that they have justified belief systems based solely on scientific evidence or the lack of it. Therefore, atheists (or anyone else who thinks the problem through) rely on available evidence to reach conclusions.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I do understand biogenesis. What I'm saying is that atheists do not believe that biogenesis is the origin of life, that's not even a logical assertion. It's just ridiculous. Origin means the start of. What you're saying is something akin to "the chicken or the egg?" theory. I was unaware that, "What came first, the chicken or the egg." was a competing theory among atheists.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that evolutionary scientists have long solved the problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In nature, species evolve. According to evolutionary theory, it would be impossible to have a chicken without an egg, but quite possible for an egg from another species to mutate and gradually evolve to the point where it hatches a new species -- in this case, a chicken.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

If there is no God then life had to have been spawned from something that wasn't always life. There is no other alternative.

No alternative? Why do you think that life could not have started with life? I don't know how seriously scientists take biogenesis these days, but the idea that life has always existed in the universe seems like a plausible assumption. Recently, for example, one-celled life forms were discovered deep in one of the oceans. Some think that such life forms may have existed in the ocean depths for billions of years, surviving the various Ice Ages that ravished the planet. Life on earth could have evolved from such "indestructible" life forms.

No alternative? A scientist would ask, "What are the alternatives?" -- and set out to investigate and test them. Biogenesis, for example. That's how progress and scientific knowledge develop.

No, fishjoel, a rational atheist does not treat the presence or absence of evidence as "a matter of belief". If there is no evidence for something and no scientific hypothesis to explain such a belief, such as string theory is designed to explain certain observable phenomena, then atheism is simply a conclusion. There is no evidence for any kind of supernatural power and, as Stephen Hawking explained in A History of Time, such an idea is not necessary to explain the natural world.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Really, I can't believe I'm having this discussion as I've literally never talked to an atheist that didn't believe that life came from some kind of chemical reaction billions of years ago.

The origin of life remains speculative. However, the issue does not pertain to why atheists have concluded that there is nothing -- I repeat -- nothing to suggest that any supernatural power exists.

Have you read the books or essays of any of the atheists I mentioned above? I think you will find that, in most cases, exactly the opposite is true of atheists than you seem to think. Reason and (lack of) scientific evidence are the only guidelines -- not metaphysical belief systems -- in reaching the conclusion that Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other imaginary being does not exist.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

There is no evidence for any kind of supernatural power

That statement assumes a diety that did NOT create an existence subject to the laws of physics; my religion assumes the laws of physics fully apply to all aspects of existence.
What scientists have done dip to explain is that first moment of "something from nothing", and they're NOWHERE near explaining it.
But they DO seem to have their chickens down pat.

Originally Posted by Matrix8

I thought you said you were familiar with biogenesis. That is the hypothesis that life comes from life. But that is not the issue in this thread.

Issue or no, let’s be clear on one thing regarding the Law of Biogenesis. It’s not an hypothesis---it’s a law derived from empirical evidence and it states that life only comes from pre-existing life and not from inanimate matter.

So, the hypothesis of abiogenesis----at least on its face, stands in contradiction of a fundamental law of biology. Which begs the question of why anyone who claims to ‘justify their belief systems soley on scientific evidence’ would believe in abiogenesis.

I have my own theory in that regard.

Originally Posted by Matrixx

As regards atheism, I think you are not well informed. If we take the word of leading atheists around the world (the late Christopher Hutchins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, for example) we find that they have justified belief systems based solely on scientific evidence or the lack of it. Therefore, atheists (or anyone else who thinks the problem through) rely on available evidence to reach conclusions.

The better word for such thinkers as Dawkins, Hitchens and co., is materialist philosopher. I don’t consider myself an expert on their work but I do know that Richard Dawkins is a minimally competent philosopher [at least he was in The God Delusion] with a disdain for religion that borders on pathological.

The agnostic David Berlinski [Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy Princeton] has a little known but brilliant refutation of Dawkins called The Devils Delusion.

I’d recommend it to anyone who is interested in such things.

Originally Posted by darth omar

A political narrative’s primary function is to paint a picture that serves the party line and is partially true, at best. And what is partially true about the narrative in question is that there is a segment of right wingers who think Obama is a Muslim because he has a Muslim name.

Then there are those right wingers who are aware of that bit of Islamic theology which dictates that Obama IS a Muslim whether he wants to be one or not because he was born to a Muslim father who gave him a Muslim name [‘Barack’ is the name of the steed Mohammed flew up from Jerusalem to Paradise on]. He also attended a madrassa as a kid. And in fact many Muslims across the world think he is one too.

Note that I believe that a person holds the religion they claim to hold but if I were presented with the poll question ’Do you think Obama is a Muslim?’ I would prefer to not answer it all because the answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no.

It is easily complicated enough to skew the data.

The "madrassa" was a public school. It's only a "madrassa" in GOP propaganda.

Originally Posted by goober

The "madrassa" was a public school. It's only a "madrassa" in GOP propaganda.

Actually, Hillary started it. I'll do a mea culpa though.

Why is attending a madrassa a bad thing? Would you send your kid to one?

Originally Posted by darth omar

Actually, Hillary started it. I'll do a mea culpa though.

Why is attending a madrassa a bad thing? Would you send your kid to one?

Why do you right wingers display such complete intellectual cowardice?

Hilary Clinton did not start the "madrassa" thing.
And why the feeble attempt to deflect?
You included GOP disinformation in your post, and got called on it.