Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What did you expect us to say? We don't know. Science hasn't discovered it yet.
If you asked a scientist in 1790 how life formed, he would say "I don't know, science hasn't discovered the cause for life's current state." Should he have simply accepted the (then) widespread view of young-earth creation, or kept searching for the answer? If scientists had stopped searching and went with the popular view of "God did it," we would have never discovered evolution.
There IS an answer for the origin of the universe, but we just haven't discovered it yet.
Nonsense. Darwinsm came about in the midst of the 19th century. Do you know what the popular mindset was back then? Had to do with religion.
Atheists will consider any nonrational explaintion of origns as long as it it is non-theistic.
I was not referring to the chance of the universe existing as a whole. I was referring to the chance of us existing on this planet. The chance of our planet forming at just the right distance from the sun for life to thrive. The chance of the moon forming. The chance of water remaining liquid on the surface. The chance of our atmosphere forming in a way that is conducive to life. And so on.
Nonsense. Darwinsm came about in the midst of the 19th century. Do you know what the popular mindset was back then? Had to do with religion.
That was my point. My hypothetical scientist lived in the 18th century, before evolution was discovered. He was willing to admit that he didn't know, rather than assume, like most other people did at the time, that "God did it."
Quote:
Atheists will consider any nonrational explaintion of origns as long as it it is non-theistic.
Non-rational? Uncertainty is rational and scientific. Science starts from a position of uncertainty, creates a hypothesis, gathers evidence for and/or tests the hypothesis, evaluates the results of the study, and either rejects or accepts the hypothesis based on the evidence or testing.
In contrast, religion presupposes an answer -- God did it -- and tries to force evidence into its preconceived worldview.
As an atheist, I accept the scientific process for inquiry. If there is something that is unknown to science, I don't presuppose an answer, I wait until the evidence that will make the unknown known comes forth.
Quote:
"just came to be to be-poof!"
That is a strawman fallacy. I'm not aware of a single atheist that believes the universe just "poofed" into existence.
The most popular hypotheses for the origin of the universe, as of right now, are:
Nonsense. Darwinsm came about in the midst of the 19th century. Do you know what the popular mindset was back then? Had to do with religion.
Atheists will consider any nonrational explaintion of origns as long as it it is non-theistic.
"just came to be to be-poof!"
Have you read anything I've written in this thread at all? There is nothing *poof* about any of it. Those things that have come into existence are not explained as having *poofed* into existence by any stretch of the imagination.
Please, I would love to hear your explanation with supporting documentation of a non-theistic claim which suggests that anything poofed into existence.
Come on now. We all know that "poofing" things into existence is the creator's job. So things just "poofing" by themselves is bad form. Those that believe in divine "poofing" get bent when Dad's job is threatened.
Stereotype much? If you've ever remembered my posts, you would not have said what you said in your post. By way of reminder, I am a theistic evolutionist, who agrees that the Earth is possibly 4.5 billion years old. Try again.
Moderator cut: orphaned question.
I have never suffered the belief in the absurdities of spooks and gods and willful ignorance based hatred associated with them.
Moderator cut: orphaned
Last edited by Miss Blue; 10-31-2011 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: personal question was deleted making your answer orphaned
So let's cut to the chase since I already know you're trying to turn this in the direction of the biblical god. If you're going to say or imply that I need to take orders from the biblical god on morals, you have not read about his track record (working with the assumption he actually exists). I'll pass.
Im only inquiring as to what standards YOU go by which determine your idea of right and wrong . Are they based on any established high rated definitive source, or, are they based on whatever feeling you have at the time of a particular situation so long as it benefits you greatly in the end ? Can you please tell us how this works for your personal daily life ?
Im only inquiring as to what standards YOU go by which determine your idea of right and wrong . Are they based on any established high rated definitive source, or, are they based on whatever feeling you have at the time of a particular situation so long as it benefits you greatly in the end ? Can you please tell us how this works for your personal daily life ?
Simple, I try my BEST not to do to other what I do not want done to me. No god needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
