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!