Hare Krishna

[Whateverist]

Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

That is sooo different than what I do. I likewise avoid research like the plague and assume my offhand opinionating will be far superior. The important difference is .. it actually is better.

[Reforged]

Nope. We have a pretty good understanding of your ? tis called chemistry.


Accepting that which we have evidence for and disregarding the things that have no evidence is not a leap of faith. We don't have to believe anything. We just accept the things that have been shown to be accurate.

Adding some kind of god to the mix has no evidence. Yes there are things we don't know but you don't jump in and fill the blanks with magic we instead learn and find out what we don't already know.

Someone else on this forum today told me that maybe in a million years scientists could create life from chemicals. No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals. They've tried. Nor can scientists can bring any dead organism back to life.

I watched Richard Dawkins say we don't know how life started. Watch him, maybe 10-15 minutes in:

http://youtu.be/YUe0_4rdj0U

In my opinion, without evidence that life can be reduced to chemistry, you can't say the foundation of reality is only to be understood by physics and chemistry. Life comes from life - that's what I think makes sense.

I'm fine with the fact that you have no evidence for God. Just be real: you don't have evidence for lots and lots (and lots and lots) of things that you believe.

I'm sorry, is there an echo in here? No. No-one on this planet knows how life started yet. Some people claim to without any evidence whatsoever. We call them theists.

Did you just try to change the subject to some guy who you haven't even named or quoted from talking about how life could be created from chemistry? What has this got to do with anything that is being discussed here?

Also could you list some of these things we "believe" but have no evidence for?
Please, enlighten us to the content of our thoughts we are apparently not privy to.

---

Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

That is sooo different than what I do. I likewise avoid research like the plague and assume my offhand opinionating will be far superior. The important difference is .. it actually is better.

I don't know. Usually before I even try to engage with someone with a belief system or philosophical approach I haven't encountered before in debate or conversation on here I take about thirty minutes to an hour to get the general idea of their religion.

I don't like going in blind. For all I know it could be a legitimate view point and they're just poorly presenting it.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Yes, because God is a question mark, so is heaven and so is the supernatural. Thats not idiotic at all. Well done.
Oh and admitting you don't know everything and only claiming what you do know based on evidence requires faith now does it?
Think you'll find the big bang and the singularity are simply the most backed scientific theories, maybe you should look up the definition of theory.
I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean the inexorable part of a belief system.
You've already disappointed me and lowered my opinion of you intellectually.
I think thats a new record. I saw "hare krishna" and thought;
"Hm, well I've never met someone of that religion... maybe they will be intelligent, philosophical and insightful."
All evidence to the contrary so far.

You stating Atheism is the belief that we all come from nothing was one of my personal favourites. Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

The idea that life comes from chemicals, that life can be reduced to chemistry and physics, requires faith. Why does it require faith? Because there is no scientific evidence to prove it. There are hardcore antitheist biologists ready to say that.

If you're ready to say "I don't know where life comes" that doesn't require any faith. If you're an atheist with that position, fine. My comment wasn't for you.

My comments didn't challenge the singularity or the big bang in any way. I only commented on the question marks before them in the other poster's comment.

[Reforged]

Yes, because God is a question mark, so is heaven and so is the supernatural. Thats not idiotic at all. Well done.
Oh and admitting you don't know everything and only claiming what you do know based on evidence requires faith now does it?
Think you'll find the big bang and the singularity are simply the most backed scientific theories, maybe you should look up the definition of theory.
I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean the inexorable part of a belief system.
You've already disappointed me and lowered my opinion of you intellectually.
I think thats a new record. I saw "hare krishna" and thought;
"Hm, well I've never met someone of that religion... maybe they will be intelligent, philosophical and insightful."
All evidence to the contrary so far.

You stating Atheism is the belief that we all come from nothing was one of my personal favourites. Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

The idea that life comes from chemicals, that life can be reduced to chemistry and physics, requires faith. Why does it require faith? Because there is no scientific evidence to prove it. There are hardcore antitheist biologists ready to say that.

If you're ready to say "I don't know where life comes" that doesn't require any faith. If you're an atheist with that position, fine. My comment wasn't for you.

My comments didn't challenge the singularity or the big bang in any way. I only commented on the question marks before them in the other poster's comment.

Again. *theory*. Scientists develop *theories* then test their truth value through various experiments. If evidence is found during this process that increases the truth value of that theory then it is further studied and tested until they have enough evidence to reach a certainty level of sigma 7.
Certainty is only gained in degrees. For example we can be 99.9999981% sure the theory of gravity is legitimate. That is one of the most backed theories there is.
There is no theory in science that is given 100% certainty because that would remove possibility of error, further enquiry or new evidence coming to light.

You are quoting a theory that there is no adequate means to test yet. As such it should be treated solely as a theory without evidence. An interesting avenue for exploration that holds theoretical value. Nothing more and nothing less.
No faith required.
If you had done the tiniest bit of research before making these claims you would know this.
You have not and I'm sorry but it really shows.

[Nine]

Someone else on this forum today told me that maybe in a million years scientists could create life from chemicals. No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals. They've tried. Nor can scientists can bring any dead organism back to life.

Like I said we have a "good understanding" scientists have found multiple ways that life could have started. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean that its hasn't ever happened.

I watched Richard Dawkins say we don't know how life started. Watch him, maybe 10-15 minutes in:

*sigh*

We don't know for certain but the evidence points to things like abiogenesis. Pure chemistry which funnily enough is what human are made of and all animals for that matter. We may be very interesting chemistry but nothing more.

In my opinion, without evidence that life can be reduced to chemistry, you can't say the foundation of reality is only to be understood by physics and chemistry.

Oh yes it can. I'd like to see what you think can't be explained by these. Do you think your made up of something other than chemicals that are made up of atoms and electrons? If so show me. Prove it. Then I will have a reason to accept your claims.

Life comes from life - that's what I think makes sense.

What you think makes sense and what actually makes sense are completely different.

I'm fine with the fact that you have no evidence for God.

Nor do you.

Just be real: you don't have evidence for lots and lots (and lots and lots) of things that you believe.

Perhaps not evidence but very good reasons to accept things. If there is something that I think is true that turns out not to be then I will change my mind when I am provided with a good reason to.

Plus most things I accept as true would not require me to dedicate my life to them and pray to them. Nor do I base the rest of my life on these things.

And btw these lots and lots and lots of things are probably quite few in number lol.

[Simon Moon]

This was a great comment too! You what I love about it? The question marks at the beginning of both timelines - both atheist and theist timelines! Those are so great because they indicate that there are huge huge things about reality that we just can't figure out or perceive on our own. I guess whatever it is that set up the universe just didn't give us the power to fully figure everything out.

Of course I am comfortable with unknowns. But you're obviously not. You are the one that is filling in unknowns with other (magical) unknowns.

Disease, floods, famines, earthquakes have all been unknowns in the past that ancients (and not so ancients) explained with "god did it". All you are doing is taking a bigger unknown and explaining it with "god did it". Didn't work in the past, won't work in the present, or future.

I think it's really awesome that you're fine with those question marks. You're so fine with your question marks, in fact, that you have the amazing confidence to say "I don't know squat about major shit in the universe, but I'm still ready to tell you what a dope you are for also having question marks in your timeline."

Because you are adding all sorts of other unknowns that are not supported by evidence, reasoned argument or valid logic. You are in essence saying, "science does not have an explanation (yet), so I will use my concept of a magic creator in place of evidence based explanations.".

Why not just stop at "science does not have an explanation yet"?

Isn't that the more intellectually honest approach?

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Did you notice the other question mark in there? I'm guessing you're probably cool with that one too, and that's great for you. But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

You're placing a question mark where none is necessary. There is not a shred of evidence that shows that life required any magic process to exist.

[Kayenneh]

No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals.

I disagree.

Warning, link monster:

---

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/0...rtificial/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/0...etic-life/
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/publications/lis...c-oligonu/

---

Fair enough, they haven't made a larger organism, but these are pretty darn good steps towards it. Getting a synthetic DNA to replicate and make functioning proteins is amazing.

[Darkstar]

Fair enough, they haven't made a larger organism, but these are pretty darn good steps towards it. Getting a synthetic DNA to replicate and make functioning proteins is amazing.

Indeed it is. Evolution does not concern itself with how life started. It would only be reasonable to assume that life started as extremely simple single-celled organisms, and then evolved into more complex things. Once life is created in its simplest form, evolution takes over. Scientists don't even need to create multicullular organisms to make this point.

Evolving bacteria:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...170216.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-lab.html

[LastPoet]

You know, it is refreshing to have a religionist other than a christian around here. Besides that, it seems the bullshit smells all the same.

[Angrboda]

You know, it is refreshing to have a religionist other than a christian around here. Besides that, it seems the bullshit smells all the same.