thanks.

The reason for the term "atheist" is because to be a "theist" is the norm. Atheists are enormously outnumbered and tend to be the exception as opposed to the rule, thus the need for a title for discerning an atheist from a theist. Reason there's no such term as "astampcollectist" is because stamp collecting is not something practiced by the wide, sweeping majority. So hence, atheist/atheism is a term used to describe a deviation from the common stance of theism.

Simple as that.

Now as for the OP: I have no idea. Scientific evidence for abiogenesis exists and it gives a possible explanation but as to whether it actually happened, or when it did IF it did, the jury's still out on that.

(July 19, 2013 at 7:48 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote:

(July 19, 2013 at 7:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: What is an "organic life form" in the context of this question?
Is a self replicating carbon based molecule an "organic life form"?
Or is it just when you have DNA... or simply RNA?

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

im not too sure to be honest i have no idea. wow, that was easy.

yeah.. easy... stupid also.
You pose a question using expressions you seemingly don't understand. Back to school with you!

On the rest of the discussion, you seem trapped in the "atheists believe there is no god" definition, but every now and again you write "atheists do not believe there is a god"... in case you're not aware, there's a world of difference between the two positions.
The first is a person who claims there is no god, similarly to those who claim there is a god. Both then have the burden of proving their positions... not an easy task, or we wouldn't be here, on this forum.
Then you have my (and most people on here) position. I do not believe there is a god and live my life under the working assumption that there is no god whatsoever. It has worked well for me, so I see no reason to change that approach.
I have no proof that there is no god, but I also have no proof that there is.
The same could be said of other similar entities:
- I have no proof that there is no Pegasus, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Unicorn, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Zeus, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Tooth Fairy, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Santa Claus, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Merlin, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Ra, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Sauron, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Darth Vader, but I also have no proof that there is.
- I have no proof that there is no Force, but I also have no proof that there is.
I could go on and on with examples.
They all have equivalent reason for me to accept them as real. As such, I assume none of them are.
Ultimately, if pressed real hard, yes, I'd have to say "I don't know" about any of them.
But what are the odds that they do exist, given our current understanding of each of them?

Right, Poca. Typically in deconverts moving into atheism, the statement is "I believe there is no god," which after understanding the nuances of their position [or rather, lackthereof], shifts into "I do not believe there is a god." The first is a firm assertion, the other is merely a negative stance. There's a lot of people who don't really understand the subtle nuances that separate these two positions and that is understandable; at a cursory glance, they are saying the same thing, but with a bit more opening of the mind and reading a bit further into the wording, it becomes clear that there is actually quite a very distinct difference. As Poca pointed out, the former is an assertive stance with a burden of proof taken upon it. The latter is a non-stance. The former may seem the stronger position, but in truth it is the latter that is the stronger position, for the former stoops to the level of religious claims but the latter outright denies them. The first is saying "I have proof god doesn't exist!" Which is a falsehood as surely as religious claims are. But the second is saying "You have no proof god exists." Which is truth. By the very nature of faith, in fact. It is merely stating the obvious; that there is no proof, no evidence, and that historically-speaking, the claims that religious texts make keep coming up short and end up being proven wrong by the creeping juggernaut of scientific understanding of the world around us. The more we learn, the more absurd, ridiculous, and outright false religious texts' claims become.

So in closing, no. It's not dogma. It's not even a stance. It's also extremely narrowly defined and gives no real scope to anything. Stating that disbelief is a dogma is a contradiction. It would be dogma if we disbelieved even under mountains of proof piling on top of us [see also: the reaction of most religious individuals in regard to the theory of evolution] showing us how wrong our stance is. If you think you have a religious belief [regardless if you call yourself "irreligious," if you hold a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, then you are irreligious, and if you do not hold any such beliefs, well congratulations, you're an atheist, too] that provides a firm, concrete answer for everything or SOMEthing around us, please pay it forward and bring it to bear, so that we may collectively curb-stomp it with evidence and logical analysis. And then, we will see who is dogmatic.

But again, if you don't, then congratulations on your new atheism, now please wear this giant A necklace and attend our weekly bible-burning where we have a drug-induced orgy every Friday while we scream "thank atheismo it's Friday!"

I'm joking, that's not real, but man it'd be awesome if it was... XD

Quote:But again, if you don't, then congratulations on your new atheism, now please wear this giant A necklace and attend our weekly bible-burning where we have a drug-induced orgy every Friday while we scream "thank atheismo it's Friday!"

I'm joking, that's not real, but man it'd be awesome if it was... XD

so you want to keep religions 7 day week and have a weekly gathering... c'mon you can do better than that!

we change the 7 day week and no longer recognize religions authority to tell us how to count time and what days are holey and replace it with a 6 day week

then drug induced or sober orgies and bible and koran burning

then we take it to mars or the moon because without religion everyone is banging all the time and the population increases so we can go a fuck each other brains out on a low gravity environment

this is an awesome question... i thought atoms like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon were the basic atoms of life, other atoms like metallic atoms can not be used for life forms, that would be interesting though to have life forms with metallic atoms

(July 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm)supergenius Wrote: this is an awesome question... i thought atoms like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon were the basic atoms of life, other atoms like metallic atoms can not be used for life forms, that would be interesting though to have life forms with metallic atoms

Haemoglobin wouldn't exist without iron, meaning we would either.

In fact metallic elements are crucial to our existence. Without many of the metallic elements on the periodic table, life wouldn't exist. Indeed, the alkaline earth metals are also crucial to our existence too.