Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

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

If you believe inanimate matter came to life, that is worse than magic..that is voodoo.

There are no facts that resemble 'space debris->life suddenly appears'. You skipped some steps.

Ok, what steps?

You seem intelligent, so I'll do you the courtesy of inferring that you did so on purpose.

I will give you courtesy of asking you to provide me of the mysterious steps that you claim I missed, instead of just flat out assuming that you don't know the steps.

And even so, not all atheists accept abiogenesis.

Well, the atheists that don't accept that God did it, nor that abiogenesis did it...what are they left with?

A hypothesis is potentially falsifiable, by definiton. Whatever God may be, a hypothesis it certainly isn't.

The God hypothesis can be falsified. If you postulate a God that is based on a logically incoherent concept...that makes that God false.

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

yeah, because I challenge the notion that it happened at ALL.

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

Oh, I definitely understood it..I just didn't grant it.

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

Well, that is my standard.

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.

But whatever they believe in has to have explanatory value. As I think I've demonstrated, a timeless cause is needed. So unless the atheist believe these "ghosts" transcended time before the universe, then there position suffers from a virus called "irrationatitis". These ghosts would also have to be able to create from nothing, thereby being extremely powerful.

And my goodness, when you take away all the fluff and feathers, the being(s) that they call "ghosts" is just another name for....God.

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.

Well, the vast majority I've come across believes "naturedidit". That is from about almost 15 years in to apologetics.

Or a supernatural cause that isn't a god.

So please define a supernatural cause that creates a universe/time from nothing and not fit the definition of "god". What would you call such a being? We call such a being "god". They may call it something different, but the fact of the matter is...it is the same entity being called a different name.

Or 'I don't know'.

Which would still give rise to the POSSIBILITY of naturalism.

It's not a game. It's us acknowledging that not all atheists think the way we do, and you not liking it.

It is a game. Sure, there are people out there that believe all sorts of crazy things...but the vast majority of atheists I've come across in my years, none of them ever expressed to me that they believe in a supernatural reality with at ALL.

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.

Regardless of what you did to validate a theory, something was done. Nothing has been done yet to validate the origin of consciousness, OR abiogenesis.

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

I think Jesus hasn't made his return to earth, "yet".

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.

Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

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.

You do realize that an unatural cause is a supernatural cause, right?