Atheism is unreasonable

[pocaracas]

Really, guys?!
15 pages in 5 hours?!
ok, I've seen worse in this forum... ans I was a part of those 30 pages in 2 hours....

Damn, I couldn't read the whole thing... so many goodies y'all must have already addressed...

Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

It's always a breath of fresh air when we do that.... so lets!

I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

That is basically my belief in a nut shell.

Care to tell us a bit about what has made you believe that?

Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine, Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).

J. said that?
How do you know that?

Darth said "I am your father"

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Aren't you mixing the order of it?
"dead matter" becomes dead after being alive.... prior to life, there's no death.
Also, sex comes wayyyy before thinking and talking.
Think about it!

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried. I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

Because it doesn't postulate the existence of an entity which far surpasses everything that exists.... an entity which never shows its face.

You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

I think you need to review your nomenclature.

A series of chemical reaction led to biochemistry, which led to single-celled organisms. In time (lots and lots of time), some of those organisms, possibly due to proximity, managed to survive, breed, feed better when working together, thus giving rise to multi-cellular organisms.
Add in more time... much more time... more time than you can imagine... and these organisms present differentiation of structures within them, eventually, giving rise to complex organisms, with organs, skeletons, etc...
In spite of several mass extinctions, life endured on this planet... we got trilobites, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, simians... us.
Far before "us", there was consciousness. Several experiences with animals, show awareness of the self and of others... mostly in apes.
Then hominids got out of trees, developed the use of hands, developed the brains and here we are.
That, in a very very very tiny nutshell, is what science claims about how us, thinking apes, came to be on this rock.

Are you seriously wanting to tell me that this is far less reasonable than the existence of an entity which doesn't show itself, doesn't manifest itself, doesn't appear to exist beyond people's wishful thinking?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

I've heard this before.... I've read this before....
SOCK!

[Mudhammam]

Logical arguments only produce real world truths if the premises on which they rest are sound. If you prove the universe is impossible, than there's something wrong with your premise.

Or with logic

You're only about 230 years late with that epiphany. Better late than never though, right?

[Ben Davis]

Hi, I said I'd take the opportunity to talk with you so here I am. I've caught up with all the other posts on this thread, so-far. My tuppenceworth:

Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

There's plenty of rhetoric in your answers to others. I hope you stay truer to your word with me.

I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Okay, you've got a straightforward John 3:16 approach.

That is basically my belief in a nut shell. Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine,

Thanks for your permission...

Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus may or may not have said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).

Fixed.

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Nonsense. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, nothing more. It has no inherent belief structure. Atheists can (and do) believe all sorts of things, both rational and irrational. This is clearly a conflation of atheism with an appalling straw-man of scientific material-naturalism. Given that you claim to have a high-school education (I'm assuming you passed), this must be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent atheism, material naturalism and the scientific method for a nefarious purpose. Please remind me, which commandment forbids lying?

Oh, and what was that you were saying about not using rhetoric?

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE.

Yes, that's the christian claim. Oh, I get it! You're trying to make a naturalistic position seem as ridiculous as the claims of Genesis! Isn't that sincere of you...

For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried.

Why? If you truly believe your strawman to be the case, the only difference between it and your christian position is that you put god at the beginning instead of a naturalistic process. If it's so unbelievable, why does it bear such a remarkable resemblance to your beliefs?

However, since you've clearly demonstrated that you're deliberately misrepresenting naturalism in order to make atheism look bad, all you're achieving is making christianity look bad. Way to score an own-goal.

I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

If you truly understood the naturalist position, maybe you would. There are plenty of christians who do.

You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness.

Not to be an atheist, you don't. All you have to have is an absence of belief in theistic propositions. You don't even have to oppose them.

So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

Everything that we know about the mechanisms of the current state of this universe tells us that's the most likely scenario and the more we learn, the closer we come to demonstrating it. Why would you think that the emergence of consciousness is any different to the emergence of life or of biodiversity?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

And you finish with an awful non-sequitur, one which tends to emanate from back-water pulpits where uneducated comments receive no challenge. That you would spout such a well-rebutted apologetic confirms, for me, that you know full-well what you're doing and you know that it's dishonest. Further, your answers to others on this thread smack of similar deceit.

You are a liar and a fraud.

[Faith No More]

I realize I'm extremely late to the party, but I've got to break me off a piece of this ignorance.

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried.

That's because you fail to understand just what "came to life" entails. It was simply chemical reactions and matter following physical laws that became self-replicating. It's not as if rocks suddenly turned into frogs.

I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

Then you fail to understand the reasonable atheist's position. It is because the theist arguments for god fail in every aspect, every time. Given that, the only reasonable position to take is that belief in god is unjustified.

You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

As opposed to the alternative that an undetectable entity that just magically exists poofed the world into existence, made humans out of dirt, and then goes on a thousand year homicidal rampage before coming down to earth as his son to sacrifice himself so he can save you from the things he's going to do you otherwise.

And you think naturalism is hard to believe?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

I guess that statement only makes sense when your understanding of the world is no better than an eight year-old's

[His_Majesty]

I realize I'm extremely late to the party, but I've got to break me off a piece of this ignorance.

That's because you fail to understand just what "came to life" entails. It was simply chemical reactions and matter following physical laws that became self-replicating. It's not as if rocks suddenly turned into frogs.

I find it absolutely AMAZING that you are telling me how it happened, yet you can't go in a lab and demonstrate it lol. And then you say "simply" as if it was no big thing. "Ahhh, it just sort of, happened, plain and simple".

If everything is as simple as you put it, go in a freakin lab and demonstrate it. Can you? No, you can't...so it must not be that simple now, is it?

Then you fail to understand the reasonable atheist's position. It is because the theist arguments for god fail in every aspect, every time. Given that, the only reasonable position to take is that belief in god is unjustified.

Yeah, it is reasonable to believe that inanimate matter came to life and begin talking and thinking. Alice in Wonderland doesn't have anything on atheism.

As opposed to the alternative that an undetectable entity that just magically exists poofed the world into existence, made humans out of dirt, and then goes on a thousand year homicidal rampage before coming down to earth as his son to sacrifice himself so he can save you from the things he's going to do you otherwise.

Pretty much, yeah. That is still more reasonable than a process that can't think to be the originator of consciousness. A process that can't see is the originator of vision.

If I blindfolded you and told you to create a human eye out of preexisting material, you wouldn't be able to do it. Yet you believe that a mindless and blind process was able to create vision???

I just don't have the faith to believe in such things.

And you think naturalism is hard to believe?

No doubt about it. When you people say your typical "magical man" or "sky daddy" man...you aren't doing anything but saying that a magician performed magic tricks, which isn't absurd at all. Magicians perform tricks all the time. That is certainly easy to conceive..we can all conceive of God saying "Let there be light", and there is light.

What we can't conceive (if we are honest with ourselves) is inanimate matter naturally, and suddenly, coming to life. Not only coming to life, but it began thinking...it began talking...it began having sex.

How absurd.

I guess that statement only makes sense when your understanding of the world is no better than an eight year-old's

The concept of life from nonlife was always absurd to me..even at 8 years old.

[Whateverist]

The concept of life from nonlife was always absurd to me..even at 8 years old.

So you still haven't answered my question: do you think God created life from scratch and pure magic -or- do you think He used the same elements - carbon, etc- of which we are in fact made?

If the former, how can you possibly claim to know that?

If the latter, then don't you attribute to god the very idea you find so unimaginable? If god can create life from the same periodic table as everything else is composed then apparently inorganic components actually do support life, don't they?

[His_Majesty]

There's plenty of rhetoric in your answers to others. I hope you stay truer to your word with me.

I can only hope there will be a lot less rhetoric in the posts than I am responding to.

Okay, you've got a straightforward John 3:16 approach.

It is the holy grail of Christianity.

Nonsense. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, nothing more. It has no inherent belief structure. Atheists can (and do) believe all sorts of things, both rational and irrational. This is clearly a conflation of atheism with an appalling straw-man of scientific material-naturalism. Given that you claim to have a high-school education (I'm assuming you passed), this must be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent atheism, material naturalism and the scientific method for a nefarious purpose. Please remind me, which commandment forbids lying?

I love how you people pretend as if you don't believe that someday (maybe even tomorrow) science will explain how life originated from nonliving material. Then it will be "at first I didn't believe in God, but now, I REALLY don't believe in God".

Again, to NOT believe in God means that you believe that nature is the ultimate originator of life. No gray areas. No in-betweens.

Oh, and what was that you were saying about not using rhetoric?

If you call making valid points rhetoric, then hey.

Yes, that's the christian claim. Oh, I get it! You're trying to make a naturalistic position seem as ridiculous as the claims of Genesis!

I really didn't need to "try".

Not to be an atheist, you don't. All you have to have is an absence of belief in theistic propositions. You don't even have to oppose them.

Law of excluded middle.

Everything that we know about the mechanisms of the current state of this universe tells us that's the most likely scenario and the more we learn, the closer we come to demonstrating it.

"The most likely scenario"...without God, right? Yet I am misrepresenting the atheist position when you just admitted that all of this "stuff" without God is the most likely scenario.

Why would you think that the emergence of consciousness is any different to the emergence of life or of biodiversity?

The emergence of life and the emergence of consciousness are two distinct problems for your position, buddy. You can either treat them separately and get attacked from two different angels...or you can loop them in together and get double the attack. Pick your poison.

---

So you still haven't answered my question: do you think God created life from scratch and pure magic -or- do you think He used the same elements - carbon, etc- of which we are in fact made?

The Bible is clear that God made everything that was made. I believe God created from "nothing".

If the former, how can you possibly claim to know that?

Because in my opinion, the God hypothesis is more reasonable than its opponent.

If the latter, then don't you attribute to god the very idea you find so unimaginable? If god can create life from the same periodic table as everything else is composed then apparently inorganic components actually do support life, don't they?

I don't understand.

[genkaus]

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried.

No - that's what YOU believe. You are the ones who believe that "before, there were no people around and then poof... for whatever reason, the dead matter came to life in form of Adam and Eve and began thinking, talking to snakes, eating fruits and fucking". Other than replacing "whatever reason" with "god" - as if that explains anything - this would be what your Christian theist believes and an atheist deosn't.

I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

Ofcourse you don't - not as long as you go on thinking that magic tricks and things poofing into existence are reasonable.

[Bad Wolf]

I find it absolutely AMAZING that you are telling me how it happened, yet you can't go in a lab and demonstrate it lol. And then you say "simply" as if it was no big thing. "Ahhh, it just sort of, happened, plain and simple".

If everything is as simple as you put it, go in a freakin lab and demonstrate it. Can you? No, you can't...so it must not be that simple now, is it?

Actually I do think that this kind of thing has been done in labs before, does anyone have a link?

Yeah, it is reasonable to believe that inanimate matter came to life and begin talking and thinking. Alice in Wonderland doesn't have anything on atheism.

I admit that I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone actually confessed to believing abiogenesis? It's one of a few life originating hypothesese that science has come up with but that doesn't neccessarily mean an atheist will believe it as a default.

Pretty much, yeah. That is still more reasonable than a process that can't think to be the originator of consciousness.

Actually no its not. I just don't think you understand the mechanisms of evolution and how it would apply into making consciousness.

If I blindfolded you and told you to create a human eye out of preexisting material, you wouldn't be able to do it. Yet you believe that a mindless and blind process was able to create vision???

The fact that the process itself has no eyes is the problem for you? Not at all the lack of understanding of the science you are dismissing?

I just don't have the faith to believe in such things.

Depends on how you are defining faith.

No doubt about it. When you people say your typical "magical man" or "sky daddy" man...you aren't doing anything but saying that a magician performed magic tricks, which isn't absurd at all. Magicians perform tricks all the time. That is certainly easy to conceive..we can all conceive of God saying "Let there be light", and there is light.

So you are comparing god to a magician? Someone we know is a fake? Whos tricks amount to little more than slight of hand and misdirection?

What we can't conceive (if we are honest with ourselves) is inanimate matter naturally, and suddenly, coming to life. Not only coming to life, but it began thinking...it began talking...it began having sex.

I don't know why it matters about what we are capable of conceiving. No human can possibly concieve the great expanse of our galaxy. We can't even concieve the size of our solar system. We can't even conceive the size of our planet or our countries. What i'm trying to say here is that it has no bearing on truth.

How absurd.

Well that's just your opinion isn't it.

The concept of life from nonlife was always absurd to me..even at 8 years old.

And yet the concept of god is so simple even a child could comprehend.

[His_Majesty]

Damn, I couldn't read the whole thing... so many goodies y'all must have already addressed...

Unreasonably high expectations.

Care to tell us a bit about what has made you believe that?

By the grace of God, I was raised with a Christian foundation. As I got older, I started to get into apologetics, which is nice, because not only do I have faith, but I have good REASONS to believe what I believe.

And here I am today.

J. said that?
How do you know that?

Easy. You have two explanations...Either God did it / Nature did it.

If you don't believe that God did it, then you believe that nature did it. If someone tells me "I don't believe the light is on", then by default, they believe that the light is off.

It is quite simple, if you ask me.

Aren't you mixing the order of it?

Well, based on the fact that I don't believe it happened either way, I guess the order doesn't really matter.

"dead matter" becomes dead after being alive.... prior to life, there's no death.

You are telling me what happens after life begins...I am talking about what made life begin in the first place.

Also, sex comes wayyyy before thinking and talking.
Think about it!

I thought about it..I also thought about question of how is it that the male's reproductive system just happens to be compatible with the female's reproductive system. Either both sexual organs had to evolve simultaneously (or around the same time), or one before the other (years in between).

Simultaneously would suggest intelligent design. Years in between would be impossible.

Because it doesn't postulate the existence of an entity which far surpasses everything that exists.... an entity which never shows its face.

According to Christian theology, Jesus is God...and people seen Jesus...therefore, people seen God.

A series of chemical reaction led to biochemistry, which led to single-celled organisms. In time (lots and lots of time), some of those organisms, possibly due to proximity, managed to survive, breed, feed better when working together, thus giving rise to multi-cellular organisms.
Add in more time... much more time... more time than you can imagine... and these organisms present differentiation of structures within them, eventually, giving rise to complex organisms, with organs, skeletons, etc...
In spite of several mass extinctions, life endured on this planet... we got trilobites, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, simians... us.

Here the god of "time" is brought forth. "Oh, it takes soooo long to occur..given enough time, anything can happen". I agree, it does take a long time. So long that it never happens.

Far before "us", there was consciousness. Several experiences with animals, show awareness of the self and of others... mostly in apes.
Then hominids got out of trees, developed the use of hands, developed the brains and here we are.

I am talking about consciousness, PERIOD.

That, in a very very very tiny nutshell, is what science claims about how us, thinking apes, came to be on this rock.

I worship God, not science.

Are you seriously wanting to tell me that this is far less reasonable than the existence of an entity which doesn't show itself, doesn't manifest itself, doesn't appear to exist beyond people's wishful thinking?

Doesn't show or manifest itself? Well, I've never see life from nonlife, and consciousness from unconsciousness...so that alleged "natural" phenomenon never manifests itself either.