Religion may not survive the Internet

[Surtr]

That is a claim itself. How did you research it? Please provide a sufficient amount of proof for it.

(This is too easy sometimes.)

Because the atheist websites and videos I have seen come with proper sources. I've seen most of what there is to find and I came to the conclusion that the stupid atheists are the ones that spam comments on random websites.

[John V]

That is a claim itself. How did you research it? Please provide a sufficient amount of proof for it.

(This is too easy sometimes.)

Because the atheist websites and videos I have seen come with proper sources. I've seen most of what there is to find and I came to the conclusion that the stupid atheists are the ones that spam comments on random websites.

[Surtr]

Laugh all you want, it's true. Especially in the case of scientists.

And do notice how I said the majority of major atheist websites. I didn't say all of them, and I didn't say every atheist. You ought to work on your reading comprehension.

[Ryantology]

Some atheists like to think of themselves as skeptics. Most aren't. Sure, they're skeptical of religious claims, but they'll readily accept a claim without evidence if it supports their own views.

Some atheists do accept claims without evidence. This is, however, human nature.

It only becomes a real problem when you insist on believing in those claims even when it is obvious that no evidence exists to support them, or worse, when it is obvious that what evidence exists contradicts your claims, right up to the point of virtual invalidation.

There are no doubt some atheists who are guilty of this on one subject or another, but if you are a theist, you are certainly guilty of it.

[John V]

Some atheists do accept claims without evidence. This is, however, human nature.

Agreed. When making a charge against theists, the atheist should ask himself if the charge applies specifically to theists, or to humans in general.

It only becomes a real problem when you insist on believing in those claims even when it is obvious that no evidence exists to support them, or worse, when it is obvious that what evidence exists contradicts your claims, right up to the point of virtual invalidation.

Yeah, like abiogenesis.

There are no doubt some atheists who are guilty of this on one subject or another, but if you are a theist, you are certainly guilty of it.

Considering abiogenesis, atheists are almost certainly guilty of it as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

(This is too easy sometimes.)

.... well, that doesn't sound obnoxiously immodest.

[Surtr]

Yeah, like abiogenesis.

-Miller-Urey demonstrated that lightning in a reducing atmosphere can produce dozens of complex organic molecules.
-Similar experiments have demonstrated that adenine (a nucleotide base necessary for both DNA and RNA) can be produced from lightning as well.
-Simple experiments have demonstrated that some 'pure' RNA molecules (without any cell structure around them) can reproduce themselves indefinitely, given the right concentrations of chemicals in the water around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._F..._molecules
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_che...iller.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st20jun_1/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...010909.php
http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/0...nesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob...ation.html

[John V]

Yeah, like abiogenesis.

-Miller-Urey demonstrated that lightning in a reducing atmosphere can produce dozens of complex organic molecules.
-Similar experiments have demonstrated that adenine (a nucleotide base necessary for both DNA and RNA) can be produced from lightning as well.
-Simple experiments have demonstrated that some 'pure' RNA molecules (without any cell structure around them) can reproduce themselves indefinitely, given the right concentrations of chemicals in the water around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._F..._molecules
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_che...iller.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...st20jun_1/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...010909.php
http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/0...nesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob...ation.html

We've observed life come from life billions of times.

We've observed life come from inert matter zero times. You note a few of those non-observations above.

---

(This is too easy sometimes.)

.... well, that doesn't sound obnoxiously immodest.

Obnoxiously immodest earns accolades around here. Well, if you're an atheist it does. Go figure.

[downbeatplumb]

Catholics have emphasized for centuries: competitive breeding.

I think you may have found a sport I'd actually watch.

[TromboneAtheist]

Hypothesizing that Abiogenesis is a plausible explanation for the orgin of life is one thing. Claiming that an all powerful, all knowing, personal God watches over and communicates with humans on Earth is another thing entirely. Especially since Theists claim to believe this with all their heart, and I dare say most couldn't care less if there was tons of proof against their beliefs. Atheists are very different. I'd say many Atheists don't agree with Abiogenesis, and the ones that do would gladly change their ideas about the orgin of life if evidence was presented to them. Of course, there are asshole Atheists. But they aren't very common IMO. As opposed to some religions