Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Brian37]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

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

The reply was "naturalistic process," No one has said God used natural processes to "make" the human body. Yes the term is "make," God made the human body from the materials of the earth and then created a soul (breath of life). Read the creation story God created three times and made things from the created things.

GC

---

The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be.

Been trying to tell you this for years, glad to see you are beginning to understand.

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,

Yes you are, you follow the likes of Dawkins and others.

we are not a gang,

Yes you are you've proven that in this thread. Since I've been back the same people are following me from thread to thread, just to harass for the most part.

we are not a religion,

You follow the religion of Darwin, Dawkins and others, you all parrot Dawkins every chance you get.

we are not a political party, 

  I'm betting most atheist here are liberal democrats.

GC

No we are not a gang, nobody is holding you hostage, we are not blackmailing you for money, we are not threatening you like the mafia. You are free to leave and you don't even have to pay money to post here. No, you do not have to leave, but if you stay you have known what we do here. You are not going to falsely play victim with us.

Your cognitive dissonance is not our baggage.

When we talk about the Adam and Eve or the flood story, you get offended sure, we know that. But you choose to get offended rather than to try to understand why your logic is flawed. And you also refuse to consider many of us here were once on the side you hold now.

I do get tired of people hiding behind their religion. There are real victims in the world, like Kurdish and Coptic Christians. There are Sunni Muslims whom are victims of Shiite Muslims and Shiite Muslims whom are victims of Sunnis. There are gays and atheists whom are also victims. You having your claims picked on on a website you are not forced to post on does not make you a victim nor does it make us the bad guys.

You not liking our responses merely means you feel uncomfortable. Guess what? Many of us felt the same thing when we did believe. Instead of assuming we are out to harm you, you need to consider we are merely throwing cold water on your face in the hopes you wake up.

But if you chose to stay, stop trying to falsely slur us with the word "gang". You should know by now if you have read enough threads, not even the members here all like each other. I have had plenty of public fights with atheists on this website, so no, we are not a gang. 

This website provides you with the tool to block individuals so if you get that offended by them, you don't have to read their posts. A "gang" in reality would not do that. A "gang" like the mafia or street gang, real criminals, would force you to pay them protection money and beat you if you didn't submit. A "gang" would not let you on their turf unless you submitted to them and not challenge them. Nobody here not even the admins are going to prevent you from trying to make any argument you want. 

You not liking our responses only means you don't like our responses. It does not make us the bad guys.

---

So many atheists are democrats but you used the word gang. You must cherry pick the threads you read because you would know we have GOP and Libertarian Ayn Rand type atheists. No, I am not one of them, but you don't get to decide for every single atheist what their political party is.

But I hate to burst your bubble, even our GOP voting atheists who value the same "fuck you I got mine" economics, would also reject the mythology of Adam and Eve and the flood story. Why? Because one is about economics, and the other is about mythology. Just because we might agree on rejecting mythology does not mean we agree on economic views.

We are no different than any theist. Don't act like Christians don't have their economic left and economic right, they do. Atheists are no different. So the issue in this thread is not economic views, but mythology vs fact. Evolution in scientific reality does not favor incest. The bible writers couldn't have had any clue when they wrote those stories, and first people mythology is also not unique to Christianity. You do not get to blame atheists for the writings of antiquity we were not around to write.

We are not treating you unfairly, we have Muslims on this site too and we treat them no differently. The issue is not your rights, the issue is your logic, vs what we know today. We are not out to get you, we will not murder you, we wont have you arrested.

I have said it many times and I would say this to anyone of any religion. When people make claims about how true the claims of antiquity are, I hear, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup". Now what would you do if you had a brother or sister or parent or friend or co worker who constantly repeated that? It would bother you.

Your logic bothers us, not your human rights. Your rights are not in danger so please stop playing false martyr and falsely calling us a gang. Either you have facts to defend your position, or you dont. If you don't, fine, we wont murder you for not having facts, but we are also under no obligation to remain silent and never challenge you.

[Nay_Sayer]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

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

The reply was "naturalistic process," No one has said God used natural processes to "make" the human body. Yes the term is "make," God made the human body from the materials of the earth and then created a soul (breath of life). Read the creation story God created three times and made things from the created things.

GC

---

The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be.

Been trying to tell you this for years, glad to see you are beginning to understand.

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,

Yes you are, you follow the likes of Dawkins and others.  BZZZ WRONG

we are not a gang,

Yes you are you've proven that in this thread. Since I've been back the same people are following me from thread to thread, just to harass for the most part.    BZZZ WRONG

we are not a religion,

You follow the religion of Darwin, Dawkins and others, you all parrot Dawkins every chance you get.   BZZZZ WRONG

we are not a political party, 

  I'm betting most atheist here are liberal democrats.

GC

I'll take that bet and set up a poll to ask them but first what does that have to do with anything?

Secondly, You managed to be wrong about nearly everything you typed, It's apparent you fail to understand the concept that Atheism is a position on one singular question. You made several strawmen and played a victim card and then you followed up with a non sequitur.

In conclusion I will pray FSM heals your broken mind.

[rjh4 is back]

To Thumpalumpacus

This thread is getting way off track.

Yes, you are generalizing, and you should not do so. You said we're all being insulting, and not all of us are. So either you can practice nuance, or catch grief for sloppy thinking. It's not my problem, but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment. If that discomfits you, perhaps you should, you know, say what you actually mean.

You know my "position on things". You also know that I'm not cussing at you or calling you names. You should take care not to broad-brush people -- and if you do, you should not be surprised when they pipe up.

1) Maybe you should practice nuance also.  I never used the word "insulting".

2) I agreed that at the point you were talking about that I was generalizing. So why are you commenting like I said I wasn't. More nuance practice needed on your part.

3) I really love this one: "but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment".  This one is really rich given that neither you nor anyone else has piped up in Min's defense indicating that his original post was really meaningful in any way. It certainly does not show evidence that supports any view of life to non-life. And if it did, I would think people like you would have called me out for that, i.e., that I was wrong on my original post. But...you didn't. So from what I get out of this is that  here at this forum, you, Thumpalumpacus, will hold a Christian to a different standard than an atheist.

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

While I am specifically asking Thumpalumpacus, I am interested in any atheist's position on the matter.

[brewer]

Or if god is necessary, why can't they prove god even exists.

Like I said before, I do not think God can be proved in a scientific sense. Nor do I think that His existence can be disproven in a scientific sense. No amount of scientific research or evidence can prove one way or the other. You can say that God is not necessary all you want, too, but that doesn't prove the non-existence of God nor that He is not necessary. That is why I think looking at presuppositions and examining the resulting worldview consistency and rationality provides a better way to look at things.

So...why not proffer your presuppositions and your conclusions and see how they stand up?

You make the claim of god, prove that god exists. Prove that it is necessary. It does not have to be scientifically. 

Or have god itself show up. It apparently has a need to be believed in. You apparently have a need for us to believe in it (or you'd not be here). I don't think that an entity with the attributes you profess it has should have any problem with making itself conclusively known, to believers and non believers alike. Why do you think that is? Maybe because it does not exist?

Until god makes itself necessary in some meaningful way, it is not necessary.

[rjh4 is back]

To Godscreated

I must say, for the most part, I agree with Brian37 in his response to you.

You call them "sheep". An overgeneralization. While they may think similarly, that does not make them sheep as each may have different reasons for their positions. People think for themselves. Furthermore, labeling in this manner provides no argument whatsoever. If he called all Christians "sheep", would it prove anything? Clearly not as Christians think for themselves also.

You call them a "gang". I seriously do not think they are contacting each other behind the scenes and coordinating how to respond to me. I do think they are more biased to criticize a Christian than an atheist as I pointed out in my last post, but I would not characterize them as a gang. I am a Christian on an Atheist's forum. I kind of expect this sort of thing.

You say they are a political party and say they are probably mostly liberal democrat. Where does that come from?  And...who cares (unless we are discussing political issues...which we are not)? There are plenty of liberal democrat Christians, too, you know. I'm not, but I know there are plenty. So making such a broad sweeping statement that is totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed seems silly to me.

---

You make the claim of god, prove that god exists. Prove that it is necessary. It does not have to be scientifically. 

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

[Brian37]

To Godscreated

I must say, for the most part, I agree with Brian37 in his response to you.

You call them "sheep". An overgeneralization. While they may think similarly, that does not make them sheep as each may have different reasons for their positions. People think for themselves. Furthermore, labeling in this manner provides no argument whatsoever. If he called all Christians "sheep", would it prove anything? Clearly not as Christians think for themselves also.

You call them a "gang". I seriously do not think they are contacting each other behind the scenes and coordinating how to respond to me. I do think they are more biased to criticize a Christian than an atheist as I pointed out in my last post, but I would not characterize them as a gang. I am a Christian on an Atheist's forum. I kind of expect this sort of thing.

You say they are a political party and say they are probably mostly liberal democrat. Where does that come from?  And...who cares (unless we are discussing political issues...which we are not)? There are plenty of liberal democrat Christians, too, you know. I'm not, but I know there are plenty. So making such a broad sweeping statement that is totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed seems silly to me.

---

You make the claim of god, prove that god exists. Prove that it is necessary. It does not have to be scientifically. 

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

"Atheist" is not a worldview, please stop trying to peddle that lie.

Dawkins being right about evolution, does not mean I like or agree with everything he says or does. I have actually met him in person, and no, he is not someone I would want to have a beer with, in reality, he came across to me as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Harris is a great critic of most religions but has a Buddhism fetish I don't agree with. Hitchens also was a great critic of religion, but also was a bit of a warhawk, so even with him, NO, I don't agree with everything an atheist may claim.

Even GOP theist voters don't challenge or deny gravity, they accept gravity as a fact, but that doesn't mean I agree with their religious views or economic views. I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. 

Now again, you are relatively new here. I really would suggest you read a wider sample rate of threads, if you did that you would know we don't always agree on everything all the time.

"atheist" means "off" on claims of god/s. That is it, outside that we DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

[brewer]

---

You make the claim of god, prove that god exists. Prove that it is necessary. It does not have to be scientifically. 

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

Nope, I don't want to go there. Which post, there have been several. You can address my statements. 

Prove god exists or have god prove itself to exist. Until then god remains a unnecessary fantasy delusion.

Edit: You can't discuss/debate god into existence.

[Brian37]

To Thumpalumpacus

This thread is getting way off track.

Yes, you are generalizing, and you should not do so. You said we're all being insulting, and not all of us are. So either you can practice nuance, or catch grief for sloppy thinking. It's not my problem, but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment. If that discomfits you, perhaps you should, you know, say what you actually mean.

You know my "position on things". You also know that I'm not cussing at you or calling you names. You should take care not to broad-brush people -- and if you do, you should not be surprised when they pipe up.

1) Maybe you should practice nuance also.  I never used the word "insulting".

2) I agreed that at the point you were talking about that I was generalizing. So why are you commenting like I said I wasn't. More nuance practice needed on your part.

3) I really love this one: "but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment".  This one is really rich given that neither you nor anyone else has piped up in Min's defense indicating that his original post was really meaningful in any way. It certainly does not show evidence that supports any view of life to non-life. And if it did, I would think people like you would have called me out for that, i.e., that I was wrong on my original post. But...you didn't. So from what I get out of this is that  here at this forum, you, Thumpalumpacus, will hold a Christian to a different standard than an atheist.

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

While I am specifically asking Thumpalumpacus, I am interested in any atheist's position on the matter.

If you need a old book of mythology to keep you from harming others, it isn't religion you lack, it is empathy you lack. Now while the word "atheist" is also not a magic word that will prevent us from harming others, it also does not automatically mean we will harm others.

Funny how every nation in the world under every religious label all have hospitals and prisons. Just like you can accept there are Jews and Hindus and Buddhists whom also do not commit acts of violence, atheists are also perfectly capable of not harming others.

Maybe you need to consider that it isn't the book telling you to refrain from acts of violence, but your own evolutionary empathy. Our species was around long before any first writing or first nations. 

If you need that old book of mythology to prevent yourself from harming others, by all means keep it. But don't pretend we need it just because you like it. Most humans can figure out that harming others causes more problems than it is worth. You liking that book only means you like it. You are still not doing anything differently as far as apology that we have seen from people from every religion.

There are good people in every religion, but that does not make the religion a requirement for 7 billion diverse humans. It just means for most, they bought the religion of their parents. You found a story you like, well so what. 7 billion humans with thousands of sects under each major label. I say the same to you as I say to anyone of any label. Get in line, take a number.

[rjh4 is back]

To Godscreated

I must say, for the most part, I agree with Brian37 in his response to you.

You call them "sheep". An overgeneralization. While they may think similarly, that does not make them sheep as each may have different reasons for their positions. People think for themselves. Furthermore, labeling in this manner provides no argument whatsoever. If he called all Christians "sheep", would it prove anything? Clearly not as Christians think for themselves also.

You call them a "gang". I seriously do not think they are contacting each other behind the scenes and coordinating how to respond to me. I do think they are more biased to criticize a Christian than an atheist as I pointed out in my last post, but I would not characterize them as a gang. I am a Christian on an Atheist's forum. I kind of expect this sort of thing.

You say they are a political party and say they are probably mostly liberal democrat. Where does that come from?  And...who cares (unless we are discussing political issues...which we are not)? There are plenty of liberal democrat Christians, too, you know. I'm not, but I know there are plenty. So making such a broad sweeping statement that is totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed seems silly to me.

---

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

"Atheist" is not a worldview, please stop trying to peddle that lie.

Dawkins being right about evolution, does not mean I like or agree with everything he says or does. I have actually met him in person, and no, he is not someone I would want to have a beer with, in reality, he came across to me as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Harris is a great critic of most religions but has a Buddhism fetish I don't agree with. Hitchens also was a great critic of religion, but also was a bit of a warhawk, so even with him, NO, I don't agree with everything an atheist may claim.

Even GOP theist voters don't challenge or deny gravity, they accept gravity as a fact, but that doesn't mean I agree with their religious views or economic views. I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. 

Now again, you are relatively new here. I really would suggest you read a wider sample rate of threads, if you did that you would know we don't always agree on everything all the time.

"atheist" means "off" on claims of god/s. That is it, outside that we DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

What!!!! I said nothing in my post about atheist being a worldview. And I was agreeing with you on every point I mentioned.

Are you just conditioned to make an argument when a Christian posts something and fail to read what they write?????

Read...man...read what is written!!!

---

---

Answer the questions regarding right and wrong and the basis for them (see my previous post above that was mostly directed to Thumpalumpacus) and let's go from there. Depending on your answers, maybe I can show you the necessity.

Nope, I don't want to go there. Which post, there have been several. You can address my statements. 

Prove god exists or have god prove itself to exist. Until then god remains a unnecessary fantasy delusion.

Edit: You can't discuss/debate god into existence.

These questions:

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

If you don't want to go there...fine. Are you concerned that your answers may not logically lead to the conclusions you want?

While I agree that you cannot discuss/debate God into existence (He exists or he doesn't regardless of our discussion/debate), it will only be by discussion/debate that we can discuss the reasons why we take one position or the other and it is only by discussion/debate that the reasons can be critiqued.

---

To Thumpalumpacus

This thread is getting way off track.


1) Maybe you should practice nuance also.  I never used the word "insulting".

2) I agreed that at the point you were talking about that I was generalizing. So why are you commenting like I said I wasn't. More nuance practice needed on your part.

3) I really love this one: "but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment".  This one is really rich given that neither you nor anyone else has piped up in Min's defense indicating that his original post was really meaningful in any way. It certainly does not show evidence that supports any view of life to non-life. And if it did, I would think people like you would have called me out for that, i.e., that I was wrong on my original post. But...you didn't. So from what I get out of this is that  here at this forum, you, Thumpalumpacus, will hold a Christian to a different standard than an atheist.

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

While I am specifically asking Thumpalumpacus, I am interested in any atheist's position on the matter.

If you need a old book of mythology to keep you from harming others, it isn't religion you lack, it is empathy you lack. Now while the word "atheist" is also not a magic word that will prevent us from harming others, it also does not automatically mean we will harm others.

Funny how every nation in the world under every religious label all have hospitals and prisons. Just like you can accept there are Jews and Hindus and Buddhists whom also do not commit acts of violence, atheists are also perfectly capable of not harming others.

Maybe you need to consider that it isn't the book telling you to refrain from acts of violence, but your own evolutionary empathy. Our species was around long before any first writing or first nations. 

If you need that old book of mythology to prevent yourself from harming others, by all means keep it. But don't pretend we need it just because you like it. Most humans can figure out that harming others causes more problems than it is worth. You liking that book only means you like it. You are still not doing anything differently as far as apology that we have seen from people from every religion.

There are good people in every religion, but that does not make the religion a requirement for 7 billion diverse humans. It just means for most, they bought the religion of their parents. You found a story you like, well so what. 7 billion humans with thousands of sects under each major label. I say the same to you as I say to anyone of any label. Get in line, take a number.

You still have not explained your basis for determining good/evil. You say it is "evolutionary empathy". What in the world is that? Do you mean just the chemical reactions going on in my body/brain?

Some other things to consider: In your worldview (I am talking about you personal worldview...and everyone has a worldview), where do the laws of logic come from? Are they just a product of chemical reactions in the brain?

[Brian37]

"Atheist" is not a worldview, please stop trying to peddle that lie.

Dawkins being right about evolution, does not mean I like or agree with everything he says or does. I have actually met him in person, and no, he is not someone I would want to have a beer with, in reality, he came across to me as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Harris is a great critic of most religions but has a Buddhism fetish I don't agree with. Hitchens also was a great critic of religion, but also was a bit of a warhawk, so even with him, NO, I don't agree with everything an atheist may claim.

Even GOP theist voters don't challenge or deny gravity, they accept gravity as a fact, but that doesn't mean I agree with their religious views or economic views. I hate to burst your bubble, but atheists don't, and should not give each other a pass either. 

Now again, you are relatively new here. I really would suggest you read a wider sample rate of threads, if you did that you would know we don't always agree on everything all the time.

"atheist" means "off" on claims of god/s. That is it, outside that we DO NOT agree on all things all the time.

What!!!! I said nothing in my post about atheist being a worldview. And I was agreeing with you on every point I mentioned.

Are you just conditioned to make an argument when a Christian posts something and fail to read what they write?????

Read...man...read what is written!!!

---

Nope, I don't want to go there. Which post, there have been several. You can address my statements. 

Prove god exists or have god prove itself to exist. Until then god remains a unnecessary fantasy delusion.

Edit: You can't discuss/debate god into existence.

These questions:

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

If you don't want to go there...fine. Are you concerned that your answers may not logically lead to the conclusions you want?

While I agree that you cannot discuss/debate God into existence (He exists or he doesn't regardless of our discussion/debate), it will only be by discussion/debate that we can discuss the reasons why we take one position or the other and it is only by discussion/debate that the reasons can be critiqued.

I DID READ.

You, "I think it is wrong because THE BIBLE tells us to treat others like we want to be treated".

Those were your words not mine.

I am arguing "so what". We don't need your book to figure that out. 

You, "While I agree that you cannot disscuss/debate God into existence"

Me, STOP RIGHT THERE.............. I also agree with that. Your problem is that you cannot see or refuse to see that we are not treating your god claim any differently than any other god claim of different religions. 

Either you have evidence or you do not. But do not think we are singling you out or just your particular religion out. If anyone of any religion had 100% absolute proof, they could get a patent and win a Nobel Prize in "god theory". 

I did read, you are the one refusing to read. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

Maybe we are right and you are wrong. Maybe you need to consider that religions ALL RELIGIONS are merely human inventions. Maybe you need to consider that those things were concocted at a time when humans didn't know any better. Maybe you need to consider your pet belief is merely a reflection of your own desires. 

If someone quoting the Koran wont convince you that Allah is the one true god, then please tell us why we should give your special pleading any special treatment?

1. Argument from tradition is not valid, every religion has a history of making claims.
2. Other people quote other holy writings.
3. Everyone of every religion think they got it right.

Me, "SO WHAT".