Hare Krishna

[Reforged]

Nope. We have a pretty good understanding of your ? tis called chemistry.


Accepting that which we have evidence for and disregarding the things that have no evidence is not a leap of faith. We don't have to believe anything. We just accept the things that have been shown to be accurate.

Adding some kind of god to the mix has no evidence. Yes there are things we don't know but you don't jump in and fill the blanks with magic we instead learn and find out what we don't already know.

Someone else on this forum today told me that maybe in a million years scientists could create life from chemicals. No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals. They've tried. Nor can scientists can bring any dead organism back to life.

I watched Richard Dawkins say we don't know how life started. Watch him, maybe 10-15 minutes in:

http://youtu.be/YUe0_4rdj0U

In my opinion, without evidence that life can be reduced to chemistry, you can't say the foundation of reality is only to be understood by physics and chemistry. Life comes from life - that's what I think makes sense.

I'm fine with the fact that you have no evidence for God. Just be real: you don't have evidence for lots and lots (and lots and lots) of things that you believe.

I'm sorry, is there an echo in here? No. No-one on this planet knows how life started yet. Some people claim to without any evidence whatsoever. We call them theists.

Did you just try to change the subject to some guy who you haven't even named or quoted from talking about how life could be created from chemistry? What has this got to do with anything that is being discussed here?

Also could you list some of these things we "believe" but have no evidence for?
Please, enlighten us to the content of our thoughts we are apparently not privy to.

---

Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

That is sooo different than what I do. I likewise avoid research like the plague and assume my offhand opinionating will be far superior. The important difference is .. it actually is better.

I don't know. Usually before I even try to engage with someone with a belief system or philosophical approach I haven't encountered before in debate or conversation on here I take about thirty minutes to an hour to get the general idea of their religion.

I don't like going in blind. For all I know it could be a legitimate view point and they're just poorly presenting it.