Serious Problems with Atheism

[Cyberman]

There is much evidence of God for the open minded,

Insinuations of dishonesty. We're off to a good start.

There is much that is touted as evidence; however none of it credible nor that withstands even the slightest scrutiny.

for example using our logic to see that DNA could Never Code itself to Code itself to Replicate, it's an impossibly vicious circle.

Why would you use logic to assess a physical phenomenon? Why not use the appropriate tool for the job,in this case biochemistry and genetics? Especially when you already conceded that such things are counterintuitive. As AronRa says, DNA is made from RNA and RNA replicates itself.

In any case, you don't make your own case out of negatively pointing at an opposing one, which ought to be obvious when you don't even understand it.

And experimentally proving prayer is like experimentally proving a son or daughter loves its parents. It's a relationship, and Prayer is a relationship, and if we pray to God just for a joke or to test Him, then He sees He is mocked, that doesn't bode well for a close relationship, with God, or with your spouse or child.

How astonishingly convenient; and with an attempt at fear to boot. Trying to test prayer doesn't work, and that proves that "God" is real. Do you know how insane that sounds?

Regardless, there have been many studies into the efficacy of prayer, the most notable of which by the completely religious Templeton Foundation in 2006. Their double blind study involving cardiac patients not only failed to show any positive effect, some patients actually did worse when they knew they were being prayed over. It seems that telling someone about to undergo lifesaving heart surgery that you'll pray for them tends to get them unnecessarily worried about their chances. Who knew?

[Pulse]

There is much evidence of God for the open minded,

Insinuations of dishonesty. We're off to a good start.

There is much that is touted as evidence; however none of it credible nor that withstands even the slightest scrutiny.

for example using our logic to see that DNA could Never Code itself to Code itself to Replicate, it's an impossibly vicious circle.

Why would you use logic to assess a physical phenomenon? Why not use the appropriate tool for the job,in this case biochemistry and genetics? Especially when you already conceded that such things are counterintuitive. As AronRa says, DNA is made from RNA and RNA replicates itself.

In any case, you don't make your own case out of negatively pointing at an opposing one, which ought to be obvious when you don't even understand it.

And experimentally proving prayer is like experimentally proving a son or daughter loves its parents. It's a relationship, and Prayer is a relationship, and if we pray to God just for a joke or to test Him, then He sees He is mocked, that doesn't bode well for a close relationship, with God, or with your spouse or child.

How astonishingly convenient; and with an attempt at fear to boot. Trying to test prayer doesn't work, and that proves that "God" is real. Do you know how insane that sounds?

Regardless, there have been many studies into the efficacy of prayer, the most notable of which by the completely religious Templeton Foundation in 2006. Their double blind study involving cardiac patients not only failed to show any positive effect, some patients actually did worse when they knew they were being prayed over. It seems that telling someone about to undergo lifesaving heart surgery that you'll pray for them tends to get them unnecessarily worried about their chances. Who knew?

RNA is coded by DNA, that's basic Biochemistry, I'm surprised you made that mistake. Because RNA is Coded by DNA, the Vicious circle of Genetic Biochemistry is still incomprehensible to Scientists when they try to comprehend how DNA came into being.
The DNA itself codes for the proteins that are required for its own replication, it requires at least 50 proteins for the necessary decoding, As Sir Karl Popper once said "Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle".

[Alex K]

RNA is coded by DNA, that's basic Biochemistry, I'm surprised you made that mistake. Because RNA is Coded by DNA, the Vicious circle of Genetic Biochemistry is still incomprehensible to Scientists when they try to comprehend how DNA came into being.

Reverse transcriptase?

[LastPoet]

Even if you were right and everything in science is wrong, please demonstrate your god exists.

[robvalue]

You're projecting verbs onto physical objects. DNA didn't need "coding". It evolved into what it is. The fact that we don't yet have all the answers as to how exactly DNA came about is not a license to make up fairy tales about it.

We have real scientists on this forum, and you could learn a lot.

Also, I don't care about your God. Short of mugging me into compliance with threats, can you tell me why I should care? I don't negotiate with terrorists. He can do his worst.

[ignoramus]

hehe ...these theists not only cherry pick the bible, they cherry pick anything if it helps their cause.

I mention NDS's, he brings up sworn testimony by a neurosurgeon! If the same neurosurgeon had said science has proved that consciousness disappears as the body dies, or God is just in your head, here, look at the brain scan graphs, then that neurosurgeon would be just jumping to conclusions and/or making best guesses.
There must be a universal theme with all theists to not acknowledge a failstate at any cost. How can any of them progress if their bible (frozen in time) won't allow them to?

They speak exactly as if we dug up a bronze age farmer and defrosted him and started talking to him about the world around him... Scary shit...

[Pulse]

RNA is coded by DNA, that's basic Biochemistry, I'm surprised you made that mistake. Because RNA is Coded by DNA, the Vicious circle of Genetic Biochemistry is still incomprehensible to Scientists when they try to comprehend how DNA came into being.

Reverse transcriptase?

(RT) is a viral enzyme used to generate complementary DNA (cDNA) from an RNA template which has been encoded by DNA already so it doesn't help.  Again quoting Karl Popper;

"Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."

It's only impenetrable because mainstream science is obsessed with materialism, and that is NOT therefore an objective search for truth, but protectionism of a preconceived agenda.

[LastPoet]

.... Obviously created by the lizard men. I will give you 5/7

[Angrboda]

Actually interesting that you'd bring that up, Dr Eben Alexander, author of Proof of Heaven, a once very staunch Atheist who did not even believe in free will, is now a staunch believer 
(although not Christian) after an NDE. He describes in his book that during the NDE he was brain dead, as proved by his medical parameters at the time in the hospital, he is a 
Neurosurgeon, so we can't just say he doesn't know brain chemistry at near death events. In fact people with NDE's often describe what took place, in detail, during their surgery even 
though they were completely unconscious.

Pulse, meet Little Rik:

https://atheistforums.org/user-4405.html

He believes that NDEs are proof of reincarnation and karma, and that Tantric yoga meditation is the path to union with God.

One of you is wrong.

NDEs are a curious and not well understood phenomena that is best described as unexplained. I'm sure they are a very emotional experience. Strong emotional experiences tend to result in changes to a person. Dr. Alexander's conversion is unremarkable. And your description of people being aware of what transpired during unconsciousness as 'often' is simply a blatant mischaracterization. There are a handful of such cases, and they are categorically different from the experiences that describe white light and meeting angels. Death, brain death in particular, is a process resulting in irreversible damage to the cells of the brain. Obviously, Dr. Alexander's process did not lead to irreversible damage to his brain cells, so to imply that he was brain dead is misleading. The processes the brain undergoes in such events is poorly understood; to say that it clearly means this or that is to speak with false confidence.

[robvalue]

Yeah, science is obsessed with things you can actually measure and test. How naive.