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.
The skeptics should research for themselves instead sitting and expecting others to fetch data for them, because end the end who really knows the answer? chemicals>cells>cellular morphology>...
You could respond to what I write instead of your usual irrelevant attack.
I am talking about theists. Not skeptics, theists. What skeptics should do is irrelevant to the claims theists make about their god.
When a theist asserts their god created life, they need to explain how their god did this. And how does the theist know this? But they never do, they just run away. The skeptic already has this covered in the science section.
When a theist asserts their god just know things, they need to explain how it knows these things, and where does this god keep it's knowledge. And how does the theist know this? But they never do, they just run away. The skeptic already has this covered, people have brains and they learn or discover things.
When the theist asserts a god, they need to explain what is this god made of? And how do they know this? But they never do, they just run away. The skeptic already has this covered, they do not need to explain anything about a god they do not believe in, just as they do not need to explain how Harry Potter flies on a Besen.
If the theist can not do this, then they are just asserting things.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 02-01-2020 at 11:28 AM..
The difficulty I have with theism is the tendency for theists to claim that their god created the universe and life. And they do this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The worst of course is when they become fundamentalist and irrational.
If instead they were to embrace science (as they do when it comes to cell phones and computers and cars etc) and held to the concept that their god is their own creation, I would have no issues. In that sense their god does indeed exist. And who can say, maybe their god is part of the evolutionary processor maybe their god is of their own creation?
We meet folks here on R&S whom I'm sure none of us would want to dissuade from their beliefs. My own family come to mind too. Although I must say that it would be nice if some of them dropped the 'saying grace' bit before a meal at family gatherings. It's painful and makes the food cold.
02-01-2020, 11:39 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yeah, deities do not exist. sometimes I forget that people are talking about deities.
You said you based your belief about God on QFT. Of which, I never heard back from you in my responses in posts 1513 and 1514. Now you are saying deities don't exist. Do you intentionally bring confusion to these subjects?
These questions should be explored by all instead of looking up someone's/someone else's tooter for the answer to life's questions...
that is if you are actually curious; otherwise, you are simply proselytizing your preferences.... if you already have the answers, let the children/unlearned/naive figure it out among themselves...the grave will settle the matter.
some atheist can't do that. If we allow people to form beliefs rationally then "something more, but not more deities" becomes the most logical position. For some reason the militant can't have that, something about giving theism something and making it harder for atheism.
what the most valid position is irrelevant to them. so why question it?
02-01-2020, 11:49 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Actually, we do know.
Amino Acids -- which are organic compounds and not inorganic compounds as Abiogenesis falsely claims -- bonded together to form proteins.
Proteins -- which are organic compounds and not inorganic compounds as Abiogenesis deceitfully suggests -- started forming chains of proteins, because that's what organic compounds do.
These protein chains -- which are organic compounds and not inorganic compounds as Abiogenesis disingenuously states -- started to interact with other organic compounds, because that's what organic compounds do.
That process was accelerated by the Photo-Electric Effect and Pair Production.
Chemical reactions are not even chaotic. They're really quite orderly. In the end, what does everything seek?
Stability.
If bonding with another organic compound will make an organic compound more stable, then that is exactly what it will do. It's not Quantum String Theory.
It's not difficult to see how those chemical processes would start to become organized.
We may know the scaffolding of how life needed to come about naturally but that does not mean we have all the details in that process. We do have a lot of details though.
Organic compounds are not life, so if life arose from organic compounds, then life arose from non-life. That is what a-bio-genesis is all about. Its opposite is life from life. But here theists have a problem with an equivocation fallacy about life since God is not biological life. We know that biological life can reproduce biological life but that in no way gets us to a supernatural life (which is frankly meaningless) creating life. If life arose from organic compounds then life also arose from non-biological material since organic compounds are not biological. Biology has as its basic unit the cell not organic compounds.
Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 02-01-2020 at 11:59 AM..
02-01-2020, 11:54 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
some atheist can't do that. If we allow people to form beliefs rationally then "something more, but not more deities" becomes the most logical position. For some reason the militant can't have that, something about giving theism something and making it harder for atheism.
what the most valid position is irrelevant to them. so why question it?
There is no one denying something more - that is why we do actual research. But with that said there is nothing pointing to theism or the supernatural as something more.
There is no one denying something more - that is why we do actual research. But with that said there is nothing pointing to theism or the supernatural as something more.
Since you quoted AA, I've seen AGAIN the statement "For some reason the militant can't have that, something about giving theism something and making it harder for atheism.(I believe the rest of that is "harder for atheism to sell")
It must be that Trans said that,or something like it, at some point in time...LONG ago. and AA just won't give it up.
Does anyone else even begin to relate to that tired, old repetition? Or even know what it refers to?
02-01-2020, 12:10 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Since you quoted AA, I've seen AGAIN the statement "For some reason the militant can't have that, something about giving theism something and making it harder for atheism.(I believe the rest of that is "harder for atheism to sell")
It must be that Trans said that,or something like it, at some point in time...LONG ago. and AA just won't give it up.
Does anyone else even begin to relate to that tired, old repetition? Or even know what it refers to?
Some of his posts are very vague and not nuanced - it is hard sometimes to know what is he is actually talking about.
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.
I see dead straw people above.
