Atheism is unreasonable

[pocaracas]

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

Unreasonably high expectations.

Dammit!

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.

Isn't it convenient that the god you were raised to believe in turns out to be the true god and he digs on healing?... oops, I got carried away with the lyrics of that song!

---

---

Care to share those "reasons"?
All you've shown is "indoctrination".... I know that is a powerful force which convinces you of the existence of an unfalsifiable thing, and is the one major force that convinces people around the world to believe in the existence of the god most believed in any particular region.

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.

I asked how do you know that some person said a particular sentence?
I even gave you the example of another person saying a particular phrase. Did that person say that phrase?.... Did that person exist at all?
Or... what the alternative?
Think about it!

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.

It does matter.
The lack of order shows how disorderly your reasoning about this is.
Think about it!

"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.

Were you there?
Joke's over!
You have no way of knowing for sure how that happened... neither do I.
Thus far, nothing in my life... nothing in the growing body of evidence in all sciences... shows any hint of divine intervention.
Why, then, should I assume a god had anything to do with any part of the development of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology, etc... ?

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.

LOL!
You missed this news a few days ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/...ms-fossils

Also, Traumatic insemination

also known as hypodermic insemination, is the mating practice in some species of invertebrates in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity

You'd do good to learn a few things before you spew your faulty reasoning based on limited information.

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.

Have people seen god? Really?
How come many were unconvinced that the man was a god? So much so that they even killed him... according to the story.

Now, how can we be sure that the story portrays real events, instead of idealized ones?

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.

Like MRSA never happens...
Our grasp of what a million years is is very tenuous... I certainly can't think about it. It's a monstrous amount of time. It's not a god... it's just time enough to adapt to the environment or die.

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.

Then define consciousness, PERIOD.

An unconscious person has no consciousness... Words don't always convey the meaning you think they do.

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.

I worship nothing.
I understand some science and it makes sense.
I see no god, except in literature or as wishful thinking...
Which sounds more reasonable?

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.

You may want to read on:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

My own contact with this question was to present for the first time a scientific theory of origins to the Pope and the papal scientists as derived from repeatable experiments. These occurred in 1984, 1985, and 1990, when I was a guest of three groups in Rome, the trips being supported by Academia Lincei, IBM, and the National Foundation for Cancer Research.

Why was Pope John Paul II interested in what I might say? I can think of three main answers. The first is that, like anyone else, he is curious about where he came from, or to put the question in its most ancient time frame, what did he come from? Secondly, the Pope recognizes that, with forward extrapolation, synthesis of primitive life in the lab is a natural equivalent of Genesis in the Bible; as Pope he must therefore prepare for new arguments. The third explanation is one I received in Rome from many scientists of several faiths who surround and advise Pope John Paul II. This answer, related to the second one, is that Pope John Paul II wants not to repeat the mistake of the predecessor church who had excommunicated Galileo.
[...]
In the first of my three lectures for the papal group, we considered self-organization of matter into living beings. This process had been predicted by the French Catholic scientist, Louis Pasteur, in an 1864 debate in the Sorbonne on what was then called spontaneous generation, Pasteur asked: "Can matter organize itself? In other words are there beings that can come into the world without parents, without ancestors? That is the question to be resolved."

The right kind of matter to organize itself is known now as thermal protein, protein made from amino acids on Earth by heat. This was first suggested from the work of Alfonso Herrera of Mexico City in his laboratory of Plasmogeny, where he showed in 1924 to 1942 how to make amino acids and sulfobes, a kind of cell, under terrestrial conditions. This synthesis has much more geological plausibility than that of the amino acids of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, which are produced in assumed atmospheres in closed flasks, and which are much better known due to publicity. The thermal amino acids also fit into a single thermal continuity. The second step toward a cell after amino acids is the formation of protein. This is where we came in, in a context of protein, not thinking at that time of this as a stage of life's origin. As a young professor of protein chemistry, I wanted to know if it were possible that amino acids such as had been produced by Herrera, and later by Miller, could yield proteins on the primitive Earth even before there were living cells to make protein. So we tried heating amino acids, even though heat was known to decompose amino acids.

We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid. The results of indiscriminate heating is seen as a dark tarry mass in Figure 3. When only a small proportion of these two amino acids in included we get an amber-colored product. For years we thought the amber component contaminated the kinf of white product that professional polymer chemists obtain, such as in styrofoam. In 1979, Dr. Klaus Dose and associates of Mainz, Germany, showed that the amber color was due to flavin, formed by heating amino acids together. We then remembered that flavins are significant in energy metabolism of all cells; indeed riboflavin is standard in the human diet and even in supplements in the drugstore. The experiments indicate that flavin was there from the beginning.

The main product of heating the amino acids is protein, so listed under protein, subheading thermal, by Chemical Abstracts since 1972. The nomenclature came into existence a year after a special report on existence of characteristics common to protein and to thermal proteins was published in Chemical and Engineering News.

The expectation of protein chemists, which we shared, is that thermal protein, then called proteinoid, would be randomly disordered. What the experiments and analyses showed is almost the opposite.
[...]
In each case the amino acids determine their own arrangements. No outside agent such as RNA or DNA makes any difference during a heating process, as the late Cyril Ponnamperuma showed in 1990. The possibilities with DNA and RNA were the scheduled subject of my second paper for the papal scientists on the visit to Rome in 1985. The papal scientists had arranged this as a debate with a collegial friend from California, who at that time postulated nucleic acids as arising first. He gave his talk in the morning, and left at noon to visit someone elsewhere in Italy. As a result, the scheduled debate did not follow my lecture in the afternoon. There was no debate then, as there is none now.

When brought into contact with water, all tested thermal polymers of amino acids, without exception, have been found to organize themselves into cells, as described in the 1984 meeting.

Think about it!