Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Adam and Eve? Give me a break! So what was the original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge or the planting of the tree there in the first place? Creating morally challenged imperfect humans only to deliberately tempt them so you can then punish the imperfect objects of your own creation is both evil, and sadistic.
Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it. Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881),

Really?

Upon what basis as an atheist, do you account for absolute moral laws like good and evil?

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You can comprehend the process of abiogenesis or the idea of abiogenesis?

What, exactly, do you mean by this question? It is ambiguous.

Two possible interpretations:

1. Do you know the precise way that non-living things became living?
The answer to this is no. The evidence is not in and we have to wait for that evidence before forming a conclusion.

2. Is there anything self-contradictory about non-life producing life?
The answer to this is also no. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. NONE of the chemicals in a living thing are, themselves, alive. So non-life does, in fact, produce life.

3. Is there a reasonable path from non-life to life that can be outlined (even if the details are not known)?
The answer here is yes. And *this* is the subject of the study of abiogenesis. All that needs to happen is that the basic chemicals (which are known to have existed on the early earth) polymerize (a common process) and form a cyclic, stable, reproducing system.

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
And what caused them?
A fish?
A blob?
A rock?

Their parents? Do you really need some instruction on basic biology? Or are you again attempting the 'first cause' argument?

[EmpAtheist]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>\
I'm confused here. Are you writing this down as it happens? Not sure if you're predicting or observing what's taking place a week in the future.

I don't think it matters. Being "god" is supposed to be "outside" of time... this gets sticky. I guess it is both. I'm not using my own beliefs here. I just find this argument to be problematic for atheists and think that showing the incompatibility of omniscient and omnipotent to hold more weight

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I do have a rational basis.
That which was caused needs a cause...
Do you deny that obvious truth?

By definition, if something is caused, it has a cause. Now, make an argument that everything is caused. You might want to define exactly what it means to be 'caused'.

[Dave Nelson]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Sorry Christine, it is a paradox and will always remain one. It could never be recreated and while we can surmise a thousand different way it could have happened. We will never really know. Because you stated it yourself.
10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist

The seed makes the root, the root makes the stalk, the stalk makes the branch, the branch makes the bud, the bud makes the fruit, the fruit makes the seed. All following the same laws. In a garden, or in the wild.

But none of them grow unless they get nourishment. Garden varieties are tended to, wild ones have to reach out for it.

There is a message in there.

[mtimber]

ChristineM wrote:

“We don’t know exactly how it happened but it is certain that no god did it”

You have to admire the perverse adherence to illogical rationale...

Is it an incapability of most atheists to be able to spot the most basic logical fallacies?

Or is it when God is mentioned that logic is abandoned faster than a piranha infested swimming pool?

[mtimber]

Aura Mytha wrote:

Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist

Really?

How do you know that?

You are very good at making unsupported truth claims...

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
All arguments against God are arguments from ignorance, for they are based on what you do not know...
I hope you can begin to see the nature of arbitrary claims and there total uselessness in discussion...
But let us deal with one of your premises here:
Life comes from non-life, if you don't accept this you are ignorant.
Isn't that an ignorant argument on your part to make?

Either life has always existed, or there was a time when there was no life. Assuming that life was caused (a natural assumption because it isn't a quantum process), then the second case requires it to be caused by non-life. Next, the first case (that life has always existed) is untenable given the conditions of the early universe (very hot and dense, no atoms, etc) which did not allow the complex structures to form that are required by life.

Hence, at some point, non-life caused life.

[Aura Mytha]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I do have a rational basis.
That which was caused needs a cause...
Do you deny that obvious truth?

That is an assumption not an explanation.
It is the same paradox , without a cause there could be no cause.
You exempt a causer as the cause.
That's called "special pleading", what makes your cause exempt from a cause? Special pleading does, and it's not an answer. It's a paradox. You call it eternal , which is just another way of saying infinite, but infinite is not rational , because infinite cannot exist in making a rational explanation.

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
Upon what basis as an atheist, do you account for absolute moral laws like good and evil?

I do not believe that moral 'laws' are absolute. I think they are specific to human beings (perhaps more generally, intelligent beings) and how they relate to each other.

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to admire the perverse adherence to illogical rationale...
Is it an incapability of most atheists to be able to spot the most basic logical fallacies?
Or is it when God is mentioned that logic is abandoned faster than a piranha infested swimming pool?

Well, God believers certainly abandon logic at every opportunity to demonstrate their beliefs.

[EmpAtheist]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
Was it my free will to be born?
Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?
Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?
Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?
Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?
All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.

I like this.

I am in a meetup atheist group in Pittsburgh. I've only been to one meetup though. I live a little less than 2 hours north of Pittsburgh

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No. You asked how the concept came about. I described the process. I also pointed out that whether it applies to the real world is another question.
<quoted text>
If you think so, then you don't understand my world view.
<quoted text>
You haven't replied to any of my questions regarding *your* world view.
For example, you have used the concept of causality in your argument for the existence of a deity. Please define, precisely, what you mean by 'causality'. In particular, show why you think everything has a cause.
Second, we had a discussion about the 'law of non-contradiction'. I gave a precise statement of that law. Do you agree with my statement and the qualifications I made? If so, please feel free to use it to show the existence of your deity.

1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.

It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.

2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.

Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?

I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.

[polymath257]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Two possible interpretations:

Sorry, three--I rewrote parts of this and didn't fix the beginning.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
What, exactly, do you mean by this question? It is ambiguous.
Two possible interpretations:
1. Do you know the precise way that non-living things became living?
The answer to this is no. The evidence is not in and we have to wait for that evidence before forming a conclusion.
2. Is there anything self-contradictory about non-life producing life?
The answer to this is also no. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. NONE of the chemicals in a living thing are, themselves, alive. So non-life does, in fact, produce life.
3. Is there a reasonable path from non-life to life that can be outlined (even if the details are not known)?
The answer here is yes. And *this* is the subject of the study of abiogenesis. All that needs to happen is that the basic chemicals (which are known to have existed on the early earth) polymerize (a common process) and form a cyclic, stable, reproducing system.

1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand your argument.
I disagree with you, therefore I am wrong.
But like I keep asking you:
Do you have a rational argument to present?

You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.

The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Their parents? Do you really need some instruction on basic biology? Or are you again attempting the 'first cause' argument?

Of course I am arguing the first cause argument.

In the beginning God...

I have never deviated from that.

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have a rational argument to present?

Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have a rational argument to present?

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
By definition, if something is caused, it has a cause. Now, make an argument that everything is caused. You might want to define exactly what it means to be 'caused'.

You agree with it, then ask me to justify what you agree with?