From NOTHING , life from non-life , from a Frog , from a Monkey , from an animal? -- No, thank you. That is your FAITH. No?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Grow up. Faith is your drug, not ours.
But as the picture says above, u believe life from non life, you have faith in that, don't you.
The picture above is a puerile slander on a great scientist with very solid ethics. Every piece of knowledge that he's contributed has been peer reviewed by other scientists and is open to challenge. Don't you understand that "We don't know" is the whole basis of science, the starting point for every journey of discovery? "We don't know so god must have done it" is a lazy, cowardly retreat into mindlessness and slavery.
We don't know how life began... and we are NOT pretending that we do know the answer.
Abiogenesis is based on evidence derived from careful, scientific studies. Too bad that you don't know enough about it to carry on an intelligent conversation. As Algebe said, faith is your drug--not ours. Science is moved by evidence and ideas constructed from that evidence, not blind, dumb faith.
But as the picture said above, you lie. Isn't life from non life a theory?
Troll, take your adolescent nastiness, your gross ignorance, and your grammar-grade concept of argumentation back to whatever hole you crawled out of. You have nothing of interest.
Damn, Greensnake! And I thought myk was the only one that could put idiots down like that!
From a man who calls himself chimp3: From a monkey!
How can you call yourself that? You believe in life from non-life, yu have faith.
Uberdem: Proudly! Are you going to explain now how god created life from non-life?
We don't believe - we just don't know how life started - its the only honest answer - pretending to know the answer while providing no proof is just lying!
your argument is based on the "Argument from ignorance" (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam),
also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"),
is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
Your proposition of god being true is not proved by missing information to the contrary!
You would need to have proof he exists!
A truth claim requires evidence
Can you tell me the difference between the chemicals in "life" VS "non-life"?
No but it is you who claim to know?
Not at all; there isn't a difference. That was my point.
Or in other words: at the nuclear and chemical scale, there is no such thing as "life" from "non-life"; as there is no distinctions of "life" and "non-life".
@Uberdem
The burden of proof is for you to provide sufficient warranty for your belief in the super natural!
(you claim there is something out there that we don't perceive and cant find, what is the proof that you perceive?)
Why do you think these are different chemicals? What on earth are you trying to get to?
@ Uberdem
Even though I suspect that the question is asked with a disingenuous intention as a "gotcha", I'll answer the question with the hope that it was asked honestly and out of curiosity.
"Faith", as I use the word, means "belief without evidence".
I believe in abiogenesis to a certain extent. I don't have faith in it. I'm not at all sure about it, but as far as supporting evidence goes, it's way more plausible than the alternatives.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
You say you believe in it, isn't that the same as saying you have faith in it?
No. Faith is blindly believing in something without evidence to back it up. There is evidence to back up Albiogenisis. Therefore, believing in it is not "Faith".
@ Uberdem
I don't have faith in anything, as far as I'm aware of. To me "faith" is to believe without supporting evidence to merit any belief.
There is supporting evidence for abiogenesis, but it's not conclusive. It's the most plausible among the alternatives. So, I believe in it to a certain extent. If I had to put a number on it, I would say I'm perhaps 75% sure.
The number would probably change if I were to dive in to the subject to learn more about it.
@ Uberdem
Another way to put it:
I'm willing to revise my beliefs if new evidence were to surface. Be it abiogenesis, the Big Bang Theory or the existence of a god.
But, if you believe something without basing it on supporting evidence (i.e. you have faith), what evidence would be required for you to revise your beliefs?
[Edited: added the clarification within parenthesis]
@Uberdem
You actually think that if ONE person who identifies as atheist says something ALL people who identify as atheist also do? Do you get that a/theism Is a very different thing than abiogenesis?
CyberLN makes a very good point that should have been brought up beforehand.
The definition of atheisum is as follows:
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That is the only set similarity between atheists.
@Uberdem
Lets put it like this.
Let me ask you something. Did I have coffee this morning?
What is your answer? You don't know, right? You have no evidence one way or another.
Suppose someone comes along and says to you "an_order_of_magnitude had coffee this morning." You ask "why do you think that?". They answer "I have faith he did." When you argue that faith is not sufficient evidence for one to conclude that I had coffee, it does not mean you think I didn't have coffee. It means that you don't believe I had coffee and also you don't believe I didn't have coffee. Your honest answer is "I don't know".
Now when it comes to whether or not I had coffee this morning, it is really not interesting to anyone but me. But as to questions like: "how did life start?" "why are we here?" "what is the purpose of life?" etc. Those are very interesting and most people would like answers to them. However (and this is key) there is nothing that says that since you want answers you are owed answers to the questions or that answers even exists.
Who said you are owed an answer to how life started?
I think the OP is attempting to broad-brush belief (faith) into atheism. It's a false notion. Believers cannot understand life without some function of belief. It doesn't register with the logic they've been indoctrinated with, for they are of the caliber of men who do not carry a measurable cadre of original thinking of their own. Moreover, they do not believe they've been indoctrinated at all. They genuinely believe life is sourced to a god and the belief system isn't so much a belief but rather a fact.
________________________
The beginnings, the path and the results -
If I tell an ignorant man he exists by act of a god he will carry that thought with him.
If I then tell him I am a messenger from and to that god, he will also carry that thought with him.
If I tell him he has immortality awaiting him if he believes the first two thoughts, he will also carry that thought with him.
If this proceeds, it will establish itself as a meme complex.
The man will eventually become indoctrinated by it and think of nothing else but what he has been lead to believe. This all assumes the man has a curiosity about who he is, how he came into existence and where he's going.
Ultimately, after indoctrinating this man to believe everything I've told him not only does he have a belief to buoy his life's purpose with, he feels a sense of security (immortality) he would not have had prior to my indoctrinating him about what he needs to believe.
For my part, I've harvested one man from the many who believes I am his messenger to god, and I've established a power over him.
If I do this with many people I have accumulated a wealth of respect and power.
If I expand this power by assembling a faithful few who have displayed loyal behavior to me I would recruit them to be my 2nd-tier servants spreading my word. By this action and measure, I've created a cult.
If I color this cult with certain ceremonies and pageantry it will take on a culture of its own and something people would joyfully celebrate. From there they would take such an opinion of it that they would fight and die for it. It has now become a belief system.
Absolute power and control over the ignorant masses is the basis for establishing belief systems by the few over the many.
Once imbued with their life's work - to worship gods through belief systems - people cannot be swayed from it. They have a force of will that they've been indoctrinated with, and continually reinforced by the meme system it has assembled into its teachings, and become philosophically equipped with a sense of purpose they will defend.
This describes the OP here.
___________________________________
The atheist is a person the OP cannot understand, considering the foregoing description of thinking he has been indoctrinated to follow. He will not accept another human being that does not ascribe to some form of belief. It's unfathomable to him. He will torture himself to unravel such a person to the extent that he will contrive and conjure from his narrow perspective some vague sense of the word "faith" he can bestow upon an atheist. This will give him some relief from his nagging incapacity to understand a person who does not have faith in anything metaphysical. So, he will turn to the physical laws of nature the atheist ascribes to and then tell the atheist he has faith because he ascribes to the laws of nature.
This is, in fact, the very argument put forth my men of learned company: "Never argue with an idiot. He will beat you down to his level and win with experience." Our OP here exhibits all the markings of said "idiot". The best response to his obvious incitement is none at all.
Pitar has just simultaneously torn apart the OP, exposed the system of indoctrination, and has managed to give us yet another reason why the things we say fly right over the heads of Contradiction Man's followers.
And I thought you did not like to participate in such forays as these.
Life is just a theory. So is death. Life as we see it isn't even life, and the same goes for death. What even IS life? Death? Most say that life is "feeling, sensing, being of conscience"... but isn't that an illusion of the brain as well? Cells are "living" and they do that have what we would consider "consciences". You could argue that the nucleus of the cell is the "brain" however that is a different matter. My point is, life and death are all matters of perspective.
I find it hard to believe that the state of living and the state of being dead are matters of perspective. Solipsism isint my thing.
I'm getting a little philosophical here. If you'd be interested in a philosophical discussion about life and death, message me. I'm interested in hearing other views.
Pages