Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[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?

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

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

There are no absolute moral laws. If you were a cow, eating beef would be a sin and the killing of humans irrelevant to you, comprende? You have big ego/small brain syndrome.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

Assuming that life was caused... then the second case requires it to be caused by non-life.

Now it does not get any more circular than that.

1. If life was caused, it must have been by non-life.
2. Life was caused.
3. Therefore non-life caused it.

You don't see a problem with this argument?

And you want me to accept this as a logical argument?

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.

[mtimber]

^^Your first premise was wrong by the way...

And to correct myself.

This was a valid argument, but its premise was flawed, therefore it was unsound...

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

One more irrational argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather your lack of it. God is your dunce cap, nothing more.

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

You are still doing it, arguing from your own authority and from arbitrary prejudiced claims.

There are very few theists that will say there is no proof for God.

I think you need to reign your assertions in a little...

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.

You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.

2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.

Please be more specific.

3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.

False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

But yes, I do understand you believe you represent the world, and it is in full agreement with you.

I just don't accept you are the ultimate standard of truth.

[Pat]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no difference between your fear of death and any theist. You just rationalize it differently.
You have a stoical approach now, but when the time comes and a reality sets in, it will be shaken.
Theists have a focus to ease that transition. You will have nowhere to go,
It's a large universe. Imagine yourself waking up in in an out of the way spot in it, say like an asteroid, not knowing where to go, or what lies out there.
Your consciousness will not cease to be. Your memories and way you think now will, but your "being" won't.
Look at a mirror. You see yourself existing. What lies beyond the mirror?

One can not experience anyting if they have no working senses to gather the information or a working brain to process that information. You too will experience eternal death and dishonestly clinging to death denying fairytales can not save you. A corpse is not very confusing. Do you also believe if you smash a bottle against a wall it still exists intact, off somewhere else? That's how silly your life after death nonsense is.

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no absolute moral laws. If you were a cow, eating beef would be a sin and the killing of humans irrelevant to you, comprende? You have big ego/small brain syndrome.

There are no absolute moral laws?

So why are you appealing to emotionally laden appeals to your own standard of moral supremacy, which judges another as having a big ego and small brain?

If there are no absolute moral laws, why are you arguing that I am "morally wrong" about anything?

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.

Was your post spontaneous or did you cause it to be posted on the internet?

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You agree with it, then ask me to justify what you agree with?

Read exactly what I wrote again.

To be 'caused' means that there is a cause. So to be caused requires there to be a cause.

I could argue similarly as follows: To be glypted means there is a glypt. So anything that is glypted has a glypt.

What I asked you to do is show that everything is caused. In other words, show that everything does, in fact, have a cause. In order to do this (as opposed to the triviality above), you should probably define what it means to be a cause and then show that everything does have a cause.

[mtimber]

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
One more irrational argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather your lack of it. God is your dunce cap, nothing more.

Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have a rational argument to present?

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

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

Then what caused your god? He clearly must need a cause then too, no?

[Pat]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You can comprehend the process of abiogenesis or the idea of abiogenesis?
They are quite different things.
You need to be specific and more descriptive in your terms.

Rather you need to apply your own flawed argument to your god belief. You can not possibly comprehend a god capable of creating a universe billions of light years across therefore by your own argument god does not exist.

[mtimber]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.
<quoted text>
Please be more specific.
<quoted text>
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.

There are two types of logical reasoning.

Deductive and inductive.

One supplies absolutes.

The other supplies possibilities.

If you are arguing that you know that abiogenesis occurred by arockdidit, then you are claiming deductive truth claims which you can verify.

If you are arguing inductive, then you are arguing for the possibility.

I was originally responding to a claim someone made, that they cannot know anything unless they can comprehend it fully.

They were making an appeal to empiricism, which of course is a flawed appeal.

[Aura Mytha]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Now it does not get any more circular than that.
1. If life was caused, it must have been by non-life.
2. Life was caused.
3. Therefore non-life caused it.
You don't see a problem with this argument?
And you want me to accept this as a logical argument?

We see that you have not the ability to have rational thought based on evidence. Not much else, beyond your circular reasoning.
The evidence shows life started from simple chemical reactions, early in the formation of Earth. We don't see evidence of it having a causer. We do see evidence it started simple and evolved.
We do not see evidence of intervention into this process.
We do see evidence it was a natural process unaided by causes invented by superstition and ignorance.