The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

Mate, you're not getting it.
Abiogenesis merely tells you that whatever happened, happened in accordance to the universally patent natural world.

You are taking a liberty here. How do you know that? For all that science knows, life on earth could have started from a bacteria hitching a ride on an asteroid. As far as scientific facts are concerned, abiogenesis is assumed, not proven.

The exact mechanism is unknown. People are working on it

Till then, it is theoretical.

I don't know how else to say this... to put the god claim at the same level as the natural one is, at best, dishonest.

But the natural one is still theoretical so there is no problem at all "theorizing" a creator. There are eminent scientists that wouldn't call belief in a creator, "dishonest." It is simply an opposing view.

[rexbeccarox]

What does accepting abiogenesis or not have to do with atheism?

It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be  a people of faith.

Sorry; no. You claimed it was an inherent bias in the "atheist worldview". The only thing involved in the "atheist worldview" is a lack of or disbelief in deities. What does abiogenesis have to do with it?

You said it; I'm interested in clearing up your assertion.

[AJW333]

It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be  a people of faith.

Sorry; no. You claimed it was an inherent bias in the "atheist worldview". The only thing involved in the "atheist worldview" is a lack of or disbelief in deities. What does abiogenesis have to do with it?

You said it; I'm interested in clearing up your assertion.

If there is no God then life must have begun via abiogenesis.

[robvalue]

Another false dichotomy.

It could have happened by magic time pixies.

It could have appeared out of nowhere.

It could have jumped in from a parallel dimension.

It could be projected from a glitch in the self-assembling computer code which governs reality.

Atheists don't have to be sceptics. And atheists don't necessarily believe there is no God, either. They just lack belief that there is, by default.

There is no "atheist worldview". Weak atheists are simply undecided about what is the case.

[rexbeccarox]

Sorry; no. You claimed it was an inherent bias in the "atheist worldview". The only thing involved in the "atheist worldview" is a lack of or disbelief in deities. What does abiogenesis have to do with it?

You said it; I'm interested in clearing up your assertion.

If there is no God then life must have begun via abiogenesis.

A lack of nuance, false dichotomies, and Dunning-Kruger...

You're either a Poe or really, really clueless.

Hint: "atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion that there is (are) no god(s).

Another hint: if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default.

[robvalue]

Jinx

I did some 'splainin' about this atheist business recently.

http://youtu.be/d34BmGnrUEI

[pocaracas]

Mate, you're not getting it.
Abiogenesis merely tells you that whatever happened, happened in accordance to the universally patent natural world.

You are taking a liberty here. How do you know that? For all that science knows, life on earth could have started from a bacteria hitching a ride on an asteroid. As far as scientific facts are concerned, abiogenesis is assumed, not proven.

I don't know it.
I extrapolate from the known reality that is patently observable, now.

The exact mechanism is unknown. People are working on it

Till then, it is theoretical.

I don't know how else to say this... to put the god claim at the same level as the natural one is, at best, dishonest.

But the natural one is still theoretical so there is no problem at all "theorizing" a creator. There are eminent scientists that wouldn't call belief in a creator, "dishonest." It is simply an opposing view.

Extrapolating from what is known is one thing. It's a completely reasonable thing... It's how the Higgs boson got theorized.
Making up an entire super-complex entity is a whole other game. It's anthropomorphing reality.
As kids, we all like our talking animals and rocks in stories...but we grow out of them, as they do not correlate with reality... The god concept, however, seems to hold a particular fascination among some people, and they stick with the anthropomorphic reality to the end... It's sad...

[Minimalist]

What does accepting abiogenesis or not have to do with atheism?

It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be  a people of faith.

You never saw 'god' play in the dirt and create "Adam" either so let's dismiss that "no one ever saw it" bullshit right off the bat.

Try to understand what is being said here. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

Scientists today generally agree that DNA is the result of life on Earth, rather than its origin. But many molecular biologists are embracing the intruiging possibility, and strong evidence that the first life on Earth involved chemical multitasking by another key life molecule, ribonucleic acid or RNA. Molecular subunits of RNA have been found in alien carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, or could have formed through chemical reactions in the early Earth's oceans or primordial atmosphere leading to the exciting new theory that RNA is our earliest molecular ancestor.

[robvalue]

Oh dear.

No, we don't have independent eyewitnesses of Christ. Not that it would matter if we did, it would still be next to useless to a scientist. And even if he did come back to life (a forged ending to the original account) it doesn't mean he is God, or that he made anything at all.

There is no credible evidence that the gospels are eye witness accounts. And it's well known that Matthew and Luke heavily cribbed off of Mark, the original account. And it's fairly likely none of them were even born when Jesus died. John is just a later fan fic bearing little resemblance.

Of course, this is not what is taught in church and Christians have no motivation to go actually learn about their book. Even I was fooled. Until a few years ago, I presumed Jesus was legit, there were eyewitness accounts and it had just been exaggerated. But then I began actually studying it and became embarressed by my preconceptions.

Even some Christian biblical scholars are honest enough to admit to much of the above.

[The Grand Nudger]

If there is no God then life must have begun via abiogenesis.

Life must have begun via abiogenesis -regardless-.  Once there was no life, from this came life.  That's what abiogenesis means........

It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be a people of faith.

We don't -actually- have independent eyewitnesses to the life of jesus, but why would it matter if we did? What does that have to do with the origins of life? There's hardly a need to believe in abiogenesis - but who cares? Still the laziest TQ I've ever seen. What's all the waffling about faith supposed to be about, do you think that faith is a bad thing?

We know nothing about the origins of life, the science is wrong from the bottom up. Now that we have that handled and it's pointless to further discuss science, tell us what -you- know about the origins of life and how you came to that knowledge, whatever it is?