Atheism is unreasonable

[Mister Agenda]

We both do, in a sense. The difference is, the magic that I believe in comes with a magician that is doing the tricks...can't say the same for atheists.

You can't honestly say atheists in general believe in magic at all.

I stated the facts.

There are no facts that resemble 'space debris->life suddenly appears'. You skipped some steps. You seem intelligent, so I'll do you the courtesy of inferring that you did so on purpose. And even so, not all atheists accept abiogenesis.

Right, avoid the God hypothesis at all costs. Gotcha.

A hypothesis is potentially falsifiable, by definiton. Whatever God may be, a hypothesis it certainly isn't. And in any case that's about as much a cogent criticism as 'right, avoid the nonGod hypothesis at all costs. Gotcha.' would be if directed at theists. It's built into the definitions. We wouldn't be atheists if we thought God was an adequate or likely explanation for anything, and you wouldn't be a theist if you agreed. So what?

Whether it happened suddenly or gradually doesn't matter to a person who doesn't believe it happened at all.

Then it doesn't cost you anything to report the abiogenesis position accurately, does it?

I agree, the belief in abiogensis without intelligent design is utterly stupid.

Pretending my point sailed over your head is deliberate stupidity: the worst kind.

When I can conceive the thought of consciousness originating from inanimate matter, I will abandon my beliefs.

Your incredulity isn't an argument for the correctness of your position.

I agree...but since the scientific evidence doesn't support the notion anyway, my mind became a free agent and signed a life long contract with the "Christianity Jesus worshippers". Pretty good team to be on. A winning team.

From the outside, being on the 'right team' seems to concern Jesus worshipers much more than determining what the most reasonable thing to believe is, so your position doesn't surprise me.

I have to answer this nonsense? If God didn't do it, then who else was around to do it but nature??

Some atheists believe in ghosts. An atheist can believe in any supernatural being except for gods. I don't think they're being rational either, but they exist. You probably don't agree with the theology of pagans, but they're still theists. And don't get me started on the Raellians, who believe in transcendant aliens.

When God moves off the block, nature is the only one left in the neighborhood. If you have any other alternatives than these two, then please, enlighten me

There are atheists who believe in all sorts of New Age nuttery. I wish I could redefine 'atheist' to exclude them, but I'm not the tzar of defining things. I do theists the courtesy of not assuming I know everything about their position because I know they believe at least one god or God is real, and I hope someday that it will be normal for them to return the courtesy.

I think it is...I mean, to be honest...to see you people on here constantly making such statements is ridiculous.

To see someone come to an atheist board and think that the atheists on it are a representative sample of all atheists is pretty ridiculous.

Either God did it, or nature did it. There aren't a million different options on the table here. But we can keep playing the denial game.

Or a supernatural cause that isn't a god. Or 'I don't know'. It's not a game. It's us acknowledging that not all atheists think the way we do, and you not liking it.

Yes it does. You see a phenomenon, you ask a question, you form a hypothesis, you conduct an experiment, and you falsify or validate your hypothesis.

What you learned in grade school isn't the be-all and end-all of the scientific method. In cases where an experiment isn't possible, we see if a model can make predictions that can be tested. We didn't conduct an experiment with the orbit of Mercury to confirm Einstein's theory, we took a closer look to see if what it was doing matched what Einstein said it should be doing. That's the kind of 'experiment' that is done with evolution: we use it to make predictions of what we should find if it is true and look where the model says they should be. That's how we found Tiktaalik and countless other fossils that evolution predicted should exist (and which strata they should exist in) but which we hadn't found yet.

There has never been a experiment which has validated the natural occurence of consciousness from unconsciousness or life from nonlife. None.

Yet. Science doesn't know everything. What science doesn't know doesn't add a whit to the odds that you're right.

As just mentioned, abiogenesis or consciousness from unconsciousness has never been empirically validated, regardless of what meaning of "theory" you'd like to use in this context, or out of this context.

They are not theories. They are hypotheses. Evolution, on the other hand is a scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. They are falsifiable and could turn out to be wrong. Maybe for the first time ever we'll find an unnatural cause for something in nature. We can reasonably infer from the consistency with which we've found natural causes for things in nature that it's unlikely we'll turn up an exception at this point, but inference is probabilistic, it's not necessarily so.

So the origin of consciousness has come from within the brain, which is like saying the origin of the engine of your car has to come from within the car. It is foolishness.

That's not remotely analogous. More like 'evolution explains every other feature of every other organism, it probably explains this one, too'. If it's origin IS magic, it will always remain mysterious, if it's natural, we at least have a shot at figuring it out. This is a case where the magic hypothesis can be falsified, but it's hard to imagine what could confirm it.