Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Thumpalumpacus]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

[Brian37]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

"Abracadabra" and "Hocus Pocus".

[rjh4 is back]

Is that some new atheist argument? (Oh, those Christians need God to make them feel comfortable.) It's absurd. My views on God have nothing to do with me feeling comfortable. Seems to me the "comfortable" position is that there is no God. No God = no wrong, no responsibility to anyone or anything, anything goes = I can do anything I want to anything or anyone and be at peace (comfortable) about it (just don't get caught so as to suffer societal consequences). All of that is easy to do.

I don't need to feel beholden to some nebulous deity that watches my every move in order to be a good person. I am a good person (though I can be a dick at times like anyone else) because it feels right, because being and doing evil is a concept that is alien to me. If all that stops you from doing bad shit is the fear of getting caught by Captain Cloud, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

While I am truly glad you view yourself as a good person without God, nothing you said provides any argument or answer any question that I asked. I asked if the "comfort" thing was a new atheist argument and what you thought of Christianity such that you would make the statement you did regarding feeling comfortable.  Would you like to try to answer the questions? (I am not being sarcastic here as I am interested in the answer.)

Here are some other questions that I would be interested in hearing your answer to: By what standard do you evaluate what is good or evil?  Is there an objective standard? If there is no objective standard for good and evil, how would you respond to someone saying your statements that you are a "good" person and that "evil" is a concept that is alien to you don't have much meaning, if any at all? If there is an objective standard for good and evil, so as to give weight to your statements regarding "good" and "evil", what provides that objective standard? In other words...what stops you from "doing bad shit" as you put it? Some objective standard of goodness or just what you think is good or perhaps avoiding societal consequences? Or something else?

Please do not misunderstand my questions. My questions are not trying to say that you as an atheist cannot be "good". I think it is very possible to be an atheist and a "good" person...and am glad that some are. I am just wondering regarding the thinking behind it. I want to see if the thinking is rational at all.

---

Seems to me the "comfortable" position is that there is no God. No God = no wrong, no responsibility to anyone or anything

And yet, there is no god and you remain an asshole.  You can't blame that on your non-existent shitball of a god.  That's on you.

Do you ever actually make an argument, Min? Or are you still here just to participate in first grade type name calling?

---

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

I never said life cannot come from nonliving matter. Within my worldview the Biblical God can certainly do it. 

I wonder how it happens within your worldview?

[Brian37]

I don't need to feel beholden to some nebulous deity that watches my every move in order to be a good person. I am a good person (though I can be a dick at times like anyone else) because it feels right, because being and doing evil is a concept that is alien to me. If all that stops you from doing bad shit is the fear of getting caught by Captain Cloud, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

While I am truly glad you view yourself as a good person without God, nothing you said provides any argument or answer any question that I asked. I asked if the "comfort" thing was a new atheist argument and what you thought of Christianity such that you would make the statement you did regarding feeling comfortable.  Would you like to try to answer the questions? (I am not being sarcastic here as I am interested in the answer.)

Here are some other questions that I would be interested in hearing your answer to: By what standard do you evaluate what is good or evil?  Is there an objective standard? If there is no objective standard for good and evil, how would you respond to someone saying your statements that you are a "good" person and that "evil" is a concept that is alien to you don't have much meaning, if any at all? If there is an objective standard for good and evil, so as to give weight to your statements regarding "good" and "evil", what provides that objective standard? In other words...what stops you from "doing bad shit" as you put it? Some objective standard of goodness or just what you think is good or perhaps avoiding societal consequences? Or something else?

Please do not misunderstand my questions. My questions are not trying to say that you as an atheist cannot be "good". I think it is very possible to be an atheist and a "good" person...and am glad that some are. I am just wondering regarding the thinking behind it. I want to see if the thinking is rational at all.

---

And yet, there is no god and you remain an asshole.  You can't blame that on your non-existent shitball of a god.  That's on you.

Do you ever actually make an argument, Min? Or are you still here just to participate in first grade type name calling?

---

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

I never said life cannot come from nonliving matter. Within my worldview the Biblical God can certainly do it. 

I wonder how it happens within your worldview?

The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be. It is an old book of mythology, nothing more.

FYI the word "atheist" is not a worldview. If you want to know what an individual thinks of a certain topic, you have to ask that individual atheist. We are not sheep, we are not a gang, we are not a religion, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view, nor are we a collective "worldview".

[rjh4 is back]

There never was such a thing as a baby being born without a second set of DNA born with magic super powers and human beings do not survive rigor mortis.

If this is supposed to be some sort of cogent argument against Christianity, it fails miserably. It is merely a statement with no argument in support of it.

It would be like me trying to prove the creationist point of view by saying: There never was life that came from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms.

---

The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be. It is an old book of mythology, nothing more.

FYI the word "atheist" is not a worldview. If you want to know what an individual thinks of a certain topic, you have to ask that individual atheist. We are not sheep, we are not a gang, we are not a religion, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view, nor are we a collective "worldview".

I never said that the Bible is a science textbook so I have no idea why you are saying that.

Your statement that it is an old book of mythology is merely opinion and not a cogent argument.

I agree that "atheist" is not a worldview. I was asking any of the individuals to provide answers relative to their personal worldview not some general "atheist" worldview.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

I never said life cannot come from nonliving matter. Within my worldview the Biblical God can certainly do it. 

Well, there's one instance of special pleading right there.

wonder how it happens within your worldview?

Have you never heard of autocatalytic reactions, or scaffolding, or clay substrates?

There are several hypotheses regarding how it might happen. They all have the advantage of not appealing to the supernatural in order to explain natural phenomena.

[Brian37]

There never was such a thing as a baby being born without a second set of DNA born with magic super powers and human beings do not survive rigor mortis.

If this is supposed to be some sort of cogent argument against Christianity, it fails miserably. It is merely a statement with no argument in support of it.

It would be like me trying to prove the creationist point of view by saying: There never was life that came from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms.

---

The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be. It is an old book of mythology, nothing more.

FYI the word "atheist" is not a worldview. If you want to know what an individual thinks of a certain topic, you have to ask that individual atheist. We are not sheep, we are not a gang, we are not a religion, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view, nor are we a collective "worldview".

I never said that the Bible is a science textbook so I have no idea why you are saying that.

Your statement that it is an old book of mythology is merely opinion and not a cogent argument.

I agree that "atheist" is not a worldview. I was asking any of the individuals to provide answers relative to their personal worldview not some general "atheist" worldview.

Then why the fuck are you trying to say "God could" in reference to atoms and molecular structure? I agree that the bible is not a science textbook, so stop trying to argue REAL science with it. 

Your old book of mythology and the fictional head character you call God do not explain in any real measure how atoms and molecules behave under certain conditions and processes. God of the gaps does not work. 

Then just ask "Your position is what?" You can drop the word "worldview".

[rjh4 is back]

I never said life cannot come from nonliving matter. Within my worldview the Biblical God can certainly do it. 

Well, there's one instance of special pleading right there.

I don't think special pleading applies here.

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

So what standard am I applying to you (general you) and exempting myself from? Any worldview would have the obligation of explaining life from non-life. Mine is that God did it because my presuppositions are that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. Why would I be required to provide more. My answer flows logically from my presuppositions. You may think it is silly but it does flow logically. If yours is that matter/energy exist and all comes from this and naturalistic processes, it is your obligation to explain how. If you cannot, that is fine. But taking those presuppositions, it seems to that you would be limited to a naturalistic explanation where my position is not so limited.

Have you never heard of autocatalytic reactions, or scaffolding, or clay substrates?

There are several hypotheses regarding how it might happen. They all have the advantage of not appealing to the supernatural in order to explain natural phenomena.

Sure...so? The also have the disadvantage that scientists cannot reproduce life from non-life still. Come talk to me when they actually create life from non-life. Otherwise, all the hypotheses are really meaningless and prove nothing. Could I prove creation by coming up with a hypothesis as to how God created? I think not. So neither do the naturalistic hypotheses prove anything.

---

Then why the fuck are you trying to say "God could" in reference to atoms and molecular structure? I agree that the bible is not a science textbook, so stop trying to argue REAL science with it. 

Your old book of mythology and the fictional head character you call God do not explain in any real measure how atoms and molecules behave under certain conditions and processes. God of the gaps does not work. 

Then just ask "Your position is what?" You can drop the word "worldview".

Where did I try to argue "REAL" science with the Bible?

I agree that the Bible does not explain how atoms and molecules behave under certain conditions and processes. So? What is your point. Did I say it did? You should spend some time reading what I say or ask and answering that instead of assuming I am saying something I am not.

What is your problem with the word "worldview"? It is actually a better word to use as it is more accurate at getting at what I would like to know, i.e., what are your presuppositions and how do they rationally lead to your conclusion. So just think of that when I use the word and it shouldn't seem so offensive to you.

---

I find it very interesting that I originally asked why none of you atheists here thought of critiquing Min's post and all I have gotten is name calling and people asserting that I said things I did not. My questions are never answered but unsupported statements are provided.

Is this how atheists argue rationally?

There must be someone here that can have a discussion about issues and positions without getting emotional and calling names.

[The Valkyrie]

So Minimalist provides this article stating that scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system and that this is a clue as to how life formed and nobody here thought to push back at this at all??? Amazing!!

Maybe the following question would be appropriate:

Given that sugars and methyl isocyanate already exist here on earth and still no scientist that I know of has come up with a natrualistic mechanism for forming life from non-life, how does finding these materials in a distant star system provide any more clues to how life formed than anything that we already know?

Or maybe simply:

Scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system...so what?

Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????

C'mon, Minimalist, explain the significance of the finding such that any story whatsoever would be needed from a creationist or anyone else.

Have at it guys!!

Scientist creates life in the lab.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...g-god.html

Seems your imaginary friend isn't needed.

Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?*


*At least according to your little book of myths.

[rjh4 is back]

Scientist creates life in the lab.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...g-god.html

Seems your imaginary friend isn't needed.

Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?*


*At least according to your little book of myths.

Interesting! I actually toured Craig Venter's lab back when they were sequencing the human genome. It was pretty cool.

Creating new/different life from preexiting life (cells that already exist) is a far cry from taking chemical compounds and/or atoms and creating life from it, unless, of course, you are taking the position that cells have always existed in such a form that separately formed DNA could be inserted therein and that is how life came to be on earth. Is that your argument? If not, please elaborate on your position.

Regarding: "Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?"

First, who said God "needed" to do that? Putting words in my mouth again!

Second, it seems that the way you put the question that you are trying to use the word "incest" and its current societal taboos to it to discredit the Bible. It seems you create some problems for yourself also. What is your position on how humans came to be? Did humans evolve in one line or several? If one, don't you have the same incest issue? If many, maybe not.

Third, if you are implying incest is wrong or bad in all circumstances, what leads you to that conclusion? Is there some objective criteria that makes it wrong in all circumstances? If so, who or what provides the standard? If not, what is your basis for the implication?