Atheism is unreasonable

[The Valkyrie]

Well, "investigate" and get an "understanding" of where life originated, and where consciousness originated...and lets see how far your naturalistic experiments take you.

Nothing has ever been proven to be supernatural, not one thing.
You remember all those things that were attributed to the supernatural, things that turned out to have a natural answer, you know the ones, everything that has ever been investigated and an answer found.

Oh and consciousness has emerged through evolution.

You must be the product of an American education.

[downbeatplumb]

I checked the thread and you haven't defined this. What do you mean by "specified complexity"?

A good example of specified complexity would be your car...you pop the hood, and you will see all kind of complex parts. Every single part in there has a general purpose, some has more important purposes than others, but nevertheless, every single part has a function.

Each part at face value on its own may not mean to much of anything. But for the primarily goal of ensuring that your vehicle run as smoothly as possible, each part means something.

Each part is a certain size, shape, and length. If it is to big, it may not function properly (or at all). If it is to small, it may not functin properly (if at all). Each part is complex enough, but it is the SPECIFICATIONS of each part as it relates to the car as a whole which makes it specifically complexed.

For example, the engine to my Durrango is the perfect size, shape, and length to fit inside the hood in conjunction with the rest of the parts...but is my engine the perfect size, shape, and length to fit in a Boeing 757 jet? No, specifically tailored to fit in MY hood, not the jet's hood.

This is specified complexity...and the only way you would get that kind of complexity, that kind of specification, that kind of precision is from an intelligent designer...an intelligent orchestrator...to engineer the process.

You really don't know the answer to this!
My twelve year old could answer this without breaking a sweat.
Go and read some non-religious biology books and maybe just maybe you'll be able to talk on the same level as my little boy.

Unless of course you are just playing and you know the answer. I wouldn't be surprised if you did. Even in America they can't leave off your education at the low level you project surely.

---

The answer is these things evolved together. A heart didn't evolve separately to the vascular system for example.

Why do I bother to answer these self deluding cretins.

---

If things are so "perfectly" designed why don't whales have to breathe air. Makes no sense for an aquatic animal does it. They are like that because they evolved from land animals that moved back into the water.

[LostLocke]

I checked the thread and you haven't defined this. What do you mean by "specified complexity"?

A good example of specified complexity would be your car...
Each part is a certain size, shape, and length. If it is to big, it may not function properly (or at all). If it is to small, it may not functin properly (if at all).

Which is why a 4-cylinder, a straight 6, a V-6, and a V-8 are all the same size, shape, and length.
This is why a straight 6 and a V-6 are both perfect and have no advantage or disadvantage of one over the other.

[/sarcasm off]

[popeyespappy]

Is that a 60, 90 or 120 degree perfect V6?

[His_Majesty]

WTF? We actually do have other references, not to mention we have the FUCKING MUMMY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

Not to mention that we have his DNA and have confirmed his lineage.

Oh, the stupid is strong with this one.

Reading comprehension is important, people. The challenge was to give me one EXTERNAL Egyptian source that can corroborate the existence of King Tut. Do you two know what "external" means? That means corroborating sources OUTSIDE of Egypt, not WITHIN Egypt.

SMH.

---

Did I miss something today?

Is it day of the imbecile or something? Since I signed up I didn't have the displeasure to read so many utterly stupid comments by believers. The Tut comment of his mayesty really is something very special in the annals of ignorance. Someone should preserve it for future generations, as a warning what being high on religion can do to your mind.

What is stupid? The fact that I asked for external Egyptian evidence for King Tut's existence, or the fact that you are unable to provide an answer for it?

I think the latter is stupid.

---

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.

Congratulations, you have expressed the worst analogy of the day! Thanks for the chuckle. Now go sit in the corner and don't come out until you thoroughly understand how incredibly fucking inane it was and why.

^At this point, I'm leaning toward tenacious Poe. But that's just me being optimistic.^

Well, consciousness correlates with the brain, and a car engine correlates with a car. Seemed pretty spot on to me.

---

All of the ones you conceived so far were pretty incoherent

I sympathize with the fact that you feel that way.

---

And I'll bet he doesn't even understand why his analogy fails.

Please explain it to me, oh bright one'.

Great.

A classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

Nicely played sir, nicely played.

It's almost as if you have not kept up with the last 2 decades of major advancement in the neurosciences.

Lots of good science on the origin of consciousnesses. Magic not required.

Bullcrap. When you say "lots of good science", that is synanomous with "lots of good research". Well, there has been "lots of good research" on the existence of Big Foot...but so far, no one has been able to produce a body

Before you can explain where consciousness came from, you have to explain where did life come from...because you can't have consciousness without life.

So please..people..just stop.

[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.

[Mudhammam]

Well, there has been "lots of good research" on the existence of Big Foot...but so far, no one has been able to produce a body

LOLOLOL.
"'Lots of good research' on the existence of 'Big Foot,'" you say? This wouldn't be "good research" in the same sense that you believe there is "good historical evidence" for Zombie Jesus, right? (Who then, according to unknown authors writing decades later, conveniently floated off to outer space before anyone outside of his inner circle could verify his apparently unfamiliar identity).

Ha! Good one, kiddo.

[coldwx]

Reading comprehension is important, people. The challenge was to give me one EXTERNAL Egyptian source that can corroborate the existence of King Tut. Do you two know what "external" means? That means corroborating sources OUTSIDE of Egypt, not WITHIN Egypt.

SMH.

The question was corroboration from other sources. Do you deny that the preservation of the mummy and the examination of the same is not an external corroborating source? Seriously? The mummy itself has been examined by hundreds of "external" sources. The tomb itself was examined by "external" sources. This is not hard. You gave a poor challenge and you were rightly criticized for it. Not admitting you failed on this regard gives the appearance of simply arguing to be a contrarian.
Also, the Amarna letters possibly mentions Tut

[The Valkyrie]

Not to mention that we have his DNA and have confirmed his lineage.

Oh, the stupid is strong with this one.

Reading comprehension is important, people. The challenge was to give me one EXTERNAL Egyptian source that can corroborate the existence of King Tut. Do you two know what "external" means? That means corroborating sources OUTSIDE of Egypt, not WITHIN Egypt.

---

SMH.

---

Did I miss something today?

Is it day of the imbecile or something? Since I signed up I didn't have the displeasure to read so many utterly stupid comments by believers. The Tut comment of his mayesty really is something very special in the annals of ignorance. Someone should preserve it for future generations, as a warning what being high on religion can do to your mind.

What is stupid? The fact that I asked for external Egyptian evidence for King Tut's existence, or the fact that you are unable to provide an answer for it?

I think the latter is stupid.

---

Congratulations, you have expressed the worst analogy of the day! Thanks for the chuckle. Now go sit in the corner and don't come out until you thoroughly understand how incredibly fucking inane it was and why.

^At this point, I'm leaning toward tenacious Poe. But that's just me being optimistic.^

Well, consciousness correlates with the brain, and a car engine correlates with a car. Seemed pretty spot on to me.

---

All of the ones you conceived so far were pretty incoherent

I sympathize with the fact that you feel that way.

---

And I'll bet he doesn't even understand why his analogy fails.

Please explain it to me, oh bright one'.

Great.

A classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

Nicely played sir, nicely played.

It's almost as if you have not kept up with the last 2 decades of major advancement in the neurosciences.

Lots of good science on the origin of consciousnesses. Magic not required.

Bullcrap. When you say "lots of good science", that is synanomous with "lots of good research". Well, there has been "lots of good research" on the existence of Big Foot...but so far, no one has been able to produce a body

Before you can explain where consciousness came from, you have to explain where did life come from...because you can't have consciousness without life.

So please..people..just stop.

---

Though it's a silly argument I will respond.

To my knowledge there are no external references to Tutankamun's existence. But that's really no surprise considering the timeframe of 1334 BCE. There may be references that we have not found yet.

The point is moot, however, since we have the tomb, the Mummy, and the treasures thereof, and well recorded, though damaged, records from much of Egypt and the lands they ruled at the time.

Not so the Jesus myth, which comes from 1300 years later.

- No body
- No tomb
- No records outside one particular book - which are contradictory (and in a time when we have some very complete records)
- Only "records" written well after the time of the "events"

[Esquilax]

Hey His_Majesty, could I get acknowledgement that you were wrong about the BGV theorem, now that you've been given definitive, video proof that the authors of that paper do not agree with you? And could I also get an admission that you didn't bother to properly research the conclusions of the theorem before deciding you knew what they were, given that you came to precisely the opposite conclusion?