Atheism is unreasonable

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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.

Finally, someone has shown up to inform us of what a Christian believes...no longer do we have to wonder.

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, 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).

So even Jesus knew he was asking people to swallow something bigger than their heads.

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.

So, you don't believe in magic? I thought you said you were a Christian.

Rule of thumb: If you have to so over-simplify a claim to make it sound absurd...it isn't absurd.

But an atheist doesn't have to believe that, a naturalist has to believe that, an atheist could believe any cause for the beginning of life except that a god did it.

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

I don't think you grasp what the word 'suddenly' means.

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

I couldn't get myself to believe in that utterly stupid strawman of the abiogenesis scenario if I tried, either.

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

Atheism isn't necessarily more reasonable. Methodological naturalism is shot to pieces the moment you can show there's something that's not natural. Got anything like that?

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??

Yep. That you find it hard to believe has not the slightest bearing on whether or not it happened.

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

So you don't consider faith to be a virtue either, eh? At least we have that in common.

---

Why the heck do I have to believe such nonsense?

Are you an atheist? If you are, according to the wiki passage of "atheism", which cited its source...

"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

Now, this has been the traditional definition of atheism...even though the definition has been revised over the years because its advocates knew just how absurd the position is.

So what part of that definition requires an atheist to agree with your nonsensical version of abiogenesis, or ANY version of abiogenesis?

Well, the forum member "Brian" had just made a post where he was implying that "we" shouldn't believe anything unless it can be scientifically proven, which is naturalism.

So in other words, some people DO believe that.

And some don't. Atheist is not a synonym for naturalist. Try hanging out with the Raellians if you want to hear some non-naturalistic nuttery from atheists.

Apparently, you do.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

---

You can theorize all you like...until you can demonstrate it...until it is demonstrated by tests/repeated experiment, then it is just a theory.

Nonsense. Theories need not have repeated experiments in order to be validated. Don't take my word for it; look up theories like stellar formation.

Also, the construct "just a theory" in your post leads me to believe that you don't understand the importance of a theory in the scientific hierarchy of understanding. In other words, you're equivocating two different connotations of the word "theory".

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your high-school science classes.

Grade school, more like.

---

He was attempting to explain the origin of consciousness, and you can't logically explain the origin of consciousness by positing a preexisting brain first.

Yes, brains existed before consciousness did. You can at least be right by accident sometimes, I've seen worse.

---

[quote='His_Majesty' pid='788158' dateline='1414954299']
Ok, so let me just ask you directly...can you give me your best empirical evidence which supports abiogenesis?? If you can't, then you can spare me all the bio-babble.

Scientists will find such evidence(probably in next 50 years) just like they found evidence that technologically advanced civilizations don't last long(Fermi paradox)
There is no hope in atheism

There is no hope in theism, either. They're neither the kind of things you can have hope in. They're just differing opinions on the same topic, and everything else is up for grabs. Baby-sacrificing Moloch worshipers were theists, too. People find hope or not in the things they believe in addition to their atheism or theism.

And you don't understand that the Fermi paradox as easily implies simply that technological civilizations are very rare, that they don't last long is just one possible explanation.

---

There's more hope in atheism that there is in 2000 year old fairy tales.

There are trillions of planets where abiogenesis happened, millions of planets where sentient life arose. Where are all aliens?

That assertion you just made? It's an assertion. We have no idea how many more planets than this one abiogenesis occurred on, and we have no idea what percentage of those resulted in a technological civilization, and even if there were a thousand technological civilizations in our galaxy, they could all be too far away to detect. You're appealing to a conclusion that isn't warranted by the evidence. We don't know the odds that life will arise on a planet and we don't know the odds that life will develop into a species capable of making advanced technology. It could be one civilization per galaxy, or even one per universe...or a thousand civilizations per galaxy and they'd still be too far apart on average for us to have a good chance of detecting them yet.