(March 17, 2016 at 8:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:(March 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sorry, did you just list off some of the evidence based scientific explanations for the origin of life in a sentence that began with the claim that there is currently no evidence based scientific explanation for the origin of life?
L2Words.
In any case, atheism is not a position on the explanation for the origins of life. Atheism is not believing in gods. That clears everything up nicely, I hope.
Mmm. There is a difference between a speculation, and a fact. The former is not supported by solid evidence. The latter is.
The nature of the origin of life will affect atheism. If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
The various hypotheses that currently exist for abiogenesis are far beyond speculation. The chemistry for all of them is solid.
It doesn't matter that the exact explanation is not yet known. The fact that the current explanations work, and the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural explanation, is all that is needed to disregard the supernatural.
Quote: If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
This is not true.
There are plenty of atheists that believe in the supernatural. Just not gods. Buddhism is largely an atheistic religion, yet they believe in ancestor spirits.
But there's further problems with your contention.
For the gods to become a viable explanation, you have to provide evidence that they exist.
How would you even go about proving that the existence of gods is even possible?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
