Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (genesis, atheist, quote)
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.
Work in the general field has continued over the years. You don't understand how science works. It doesn't usually find the right answer the first time out. It's trial and error. It one step at a time, and often two steps forward and one step back.
Of course, your other choice is "God done it". Gee, think there are any problems there with your desire for proof?
But, believe as you wish.
I don't necessarily want to believe in a God-figure (I prefer "higher intelligence") but it's just that when I try as a non-scientist to analyze what's before me "higher intelligence" seems the only rational choice. I readily agree I'm doing a 'God of the gaps-thing' but that's only because science offers no rational alternative to it. Science readily admits it doesn't know how life originated. One scientist is proposing the origins might have flown in from Mars:
I have laid out what I perceive are the 3 most likeliest choice: aliens, evolution (but I quickly discount that because that is a later issue) or higher intelligence. I suppose abiogenesis would have to take the place of evolution.
Scientists have theories galore about abiogenesis but no proof. Example:
It proposes that in Earth's prebiotic history, simple organic matter was exposed to energy in the form of volcanoes and electrical storms. That energy would have catalyzed chemical reactions that, in the span of a few hundred million years, could have produced self-replicating molecules.
First problem: how did organic matter get here? Wasn't it all inorganic after the earth cooled?
But there's no more definitive proof for this than there is for a higher intelligence. So we are, generally speaking, at a stalemate.
So far no one has attempted to explain why they believe abiogenesis is the way life began. Or aliens. Or even a higher intelligence. Or even a fourth I'm not thinking of. So please, instead of reprimanding me, some of you please put forth your own theories for how you think life originated (we're not talking evolution here--we're talking life).
Hopefully once we can get to a consensus about which is the likeliest way life began we can talk about the problem of how "evil" is associated with this "way".
Learn, you're asking an almost impossible task. There is not enough room in the field to address adequately all the issues you raise and I'm certainly not going to put in the time and labor to write a book for you that you'll probably not even read. Choose your most succinct point, the one you want a detailed response to and I will answer as best I can. Or don't.
I thought I just did!
What's so impossible? Why can't you simply, succinctly, answer a simple question?
You asked. I gave it to you, and here with simple question #1 you already bail?
I think it's pretty obvious what the REAL issue is here, so I guess it's never mind. Sadly...
That sounds perfectly ridiculous. Like a millionaire preacher going about the streets full of starving homeless wittering on about faith, hope, and agape love (loving-kindness, compassion, mercy, gentleness, etc. while not doing a damn' thing to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That sounds perfectly irrelevant and distracting from the actual issues. You are losing it, Arq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Be nice if you addressed the "disconnects" with a little more in the way of specifics and substance rather than these ongoing weak nebulous defensive say-nothing retorts, but that aside.
Arq's post is the epitome of irrelevant distraction from the issues.
Quote:
I thought of you when I read this article before coming to this forum this morning...
Hofmann continued: “While still a child, I experienced several more of these deeply euphoric moments on my rambles through forest and meadow. It was these experiences that shaped the main outlines of my world view and convinced me of the existence of a miraculous, powerful, unfathomable reality that was hidden from everyday sight.â€
Hoffman is also known for discovering the effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide-25, and his description of those effects in this article reminded me of how our mind can create a "reality" that isn't really there. Not necessarily anyway. Got to thinking how any meditation or effort to alter consciousness (or enhance if you prefer) is much different from getting there by way of drugs. How is the result any different in any case? Experience is experience.
You aren't suggesting that your comprehension and interpretation of an experience is NOT hampered by being drugged? Entering an altered state under sober conscious control leaves your comprehension and interpretation uncorrupted.
What's so impossible? Why can't you simply, succinctly, answer a simple question?
You asked. I gave it to you, and here with simple question #1 you already bail?
I think it's pretty obvious what the REAL issue is here, so I guess it's never mind. Sadly...
Good grief, Learn, why are you beating around the bush??????? For God's sake just ask a simple question! Stop saying, "I already asked". If you already asked, tell me the post number.
I don't necessarily want to believe in a God-figure (I prefer "higher intelligence") but it's just that when I try as a non-scientist to analyze what's before me "higher intelligence" seems the only rational choice. I readily agree I'm doing a 'God of the gaps-thing' but that's only because science offers no rational alternative to it. Science readily admits it doesn't know how life originated. One scientist is proposing the origins might have flown in from Mars:
I have laid out what I perceive are the 3 most likeliest choice: aliens, evolution (but I quickly discount that because that is a later issue) or higher intelligence. I suppose abiogenesis would have to take the place of evolution.
Scientists have theories galore about abiogenesis but no proof. Example:
It proposes that in Earth's prebiotic history, simple organic matter was exposed to energy in the form of volcanoes and electrical storms. That energy would have catalyzed chemical reactions that, in the span of a few hundred million years, could have produced self-replicating molecules.
First problem: how did organic matter get here? Wasn't it all inorganic after the earth cooled?
But there's no more definitive proof for this than there is for a higher intelligence. So we are, generally speaking, at a stalemate.
So far no one has attempted to explain why they believe abiogenesis is the way life began. Or aliens. Or even a higher intelligence. Or even a fourth I'm not thinking of. So please, instead of reprimanding me, some of you please put forth your own theories for how you think life originated (we're not talking evolution here--we're talking life).
Hopefully once we can get to a consensus about which is the likeliest way life began we can talk about the problem of how "evil" is associated with this "way".
No, evolution and abiogenesis are not the same things.
Again, you don't "get" science. You're right, there is no proof as yet about abiogenesis. There may never be. Or there may be tomorrow. But even when the proof comes along, people -- just like you -- are going to deny it, just as some still deny the reality of fossils as tricks of the devil. And by the way, that trick sof the devil routine...I've actually had people tell me that.
You may not realize it, or perhaps you're not expressing yourself well, but when I read this post (and your others on the topic), it's pretty clear that you want it to be something god-like.
No, evolution and abiogenesis are not the same things.
Again, you don't "get" science. You're right, there is no proof as yet about abiogenesis. There may never be. Or there may be tomorrow. But even when the proof comes along, people -- just like you -- are going to deny it, just as some still deny the reality of fossils as tricks of the devil. And by the way, that trick sof the devil routine...I've actually had people tell me that.
You may not realize it, or perhaps you're not expressing yourself well, but when I read this post (and your others on the topic), it's pretty clear that you want it to be something god-like.
No! You're misreading me. I don't necessarily want it to be something god-like. I don't have a preference, all evidence or lack of it being equal. If it turns out to be aliens, fine with me. If it turns out to be abiogenesis, fine with me. For me to believe it is abiogenesis I'd have to see scientists demonstrate repeatedly that they got life from inanimate objects. So far no scientist has been able to do that so hierarchicly I'd have to say something god-like has the better edge because with god we have nothing disproving it--we have nothing proving it, true, but until we disprove something god-like then it remains the better contender, because abiogenesis is soundly refuted at the moment.
No! You're misreading me. I don't necessarily want it to be something god-like. I don't have a preference, all evidence or lack of it being equal. If it turns out to be aliens, fine with me. If it turns out to be abiogenesis, fine with me. For me to believe it is abiogenesis I'd have to see scientists demonstrate repeatedly that they got life from inanimate objects. So far no scientist has been able to do that so hierarchicly I'd have to say something god-like has the better edge because with god we have nothing disproving it--we have nothing proving it, true, but until we disprove something god-like then it remains the better contender, because abiogenesis is soundly refuted at the moment.
But aliens doesn't answer the question either. An alien lands tomorrow. How was he created.
Again, when I read the bolded section, what do I learn with how you're leaning?
And no, abiogensis has not been "soundly refuted". It's currently one emphasis of scientific study.
But aliens doesn't answer the question either. An alien lands tomorrow. How was he created.
Again, when I read the bolded section, what do I learn with how you're leaning?
And no, abiogensis has not been "soundly refuted". It's currently one emphasis of scientific study.
>>>>>How was he created.
I wouldn't go there. That's for scientists to figure out. For me it's good enough that aliens seeding earth with life offers a satisfactory explanation for why I'm here. I can die with no questions haunting me--certainly not who created the aliens.
>>>>>abiogensis has not been "soundly refuted"
That's for each of us to decide individually. You may feel it has not. Far as I'm concerned until I see scientists get a living organism from something completely inanimate I won't believe it can be done based on common sense.
No! You're misreading me. I don't necessarily want it to be something god-like. I don't have a preference, all evidence or lack of it being equal. If it turns out to be aliens, fine with me. If it turns out to be abiogenesis, fine with me. For me to believe it is abiogenesis I'd have to see scientists demonstrate repeatedly that they got life from inanimate objects. So far no scientist has been able to do that so hierarchicly I'd have to say something god-like has the better edge because with god we have nothing disproving it--we have nothing proving it, true, but until we disprove something god-like then it remains the better contender, because abiogenesis is soundly refuted at the moment.
We do not even know for sure what the atmosphere or the content of the oceans were back then whenever when was. Who has refuted a biogeneis so far? Reminds me of continental drift, never accepted until plate tectonics was discovered and now is fully accepted and shows how plate tectonics and not God makes Earthquakes. If someone does create life from non life it would demonstrate that it is possible but not that it 8s proven as the source of beginning of life on this olanet. Please link how abiogeneis was refuted?
But okay, let's simply start by simplifying #1 still some more...
1) SIMPLIFIED: Can you accept a fourth possible explanation beyond your three? The one you may not necessarily understand?
Okay, seems this is the proposal you keep referring to. I missed it or forgot about it. I will try to respond.
Yes, I can accept a 4th proposal if it is presented to me and it makes sense to me. I'm not stating a 4th because I cannot think of one. My limited intelligence tells me: life got here by aliens seeding a barren lifeless planet, or by abiogenesis or by something of higher intelligence. If you have a 4th proposal I'd love to hear it. I'd deal with it honestly and forthrightly, as I've always tried to do.
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.
For God's sake just ask a simple question! Stop saying, "I already asked". If you already asked, tell me the post number.
