"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[2timothy316]

So why not go where the evidence leads? Why choose to follow the direction that the scales don't tip?

I am going where the evidence leads? I chose to follow the direction that the scales tipped. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution while there is none for intelligent designer.

No you're following no designer. Toward the side of the scales where there has never been something from nothing and trying to explain the beginning of life with the 'nothing' on the scales. Do you know what something times nothing is? Nothing.

BUZZZ: https://www.rdmag.com/article/2016/03/s ... -life-form

Sciences (Intelligent life) make synthetic life all the time. So the scales tip to intelligent life. Life coming from one ancestor has not been observed since that early cellar record is very poor.

Wait, you think us creating synthetic life supports the intelligence design side? No, it is actually evidence that life "came from nothing" you were looking for.

Um no. You're being dishonest with me again. The life didn't come on it's own from nothing. Humans made it. That's intelligence making something. Certainly you agree, remove the humans (the intelligence) and nothing is made. If you disagree then you're being intellectually dishonest and we are done here.

[Rufus21]

Sciences (Intelligent life) make synthetic life all the time. So the scales tip to intelligent life.

So if intelligent life created life...what created intelligent life? You haven't solved the problem, you just added another life form that needs to be accounted for. If the question is "What created life?" the answer cannot be "Life". That's redundant.

Now if we know that simple chemicals can be put together to form life, why would we assume that an intelligent life form would have to be present? Especially when those chemicals are naturally attracted to each other? Why would we assume that it couldn't just happen by itself?

But now we're veering away from evolution and into abiogenesis, which is off topic.

Life coming from one ancestor has not been observed since that early cellar record is very poor.

Which is why genetics is such an important tool in mapping the history of life on Earth.

[marco]

“no one PROVES something does NOT exist�

Is it from science and or religion or just one's conjecture, please?
Anybody, please

We are apparently debating the idea that atheists require to prove there is no God. Bertrand Russell tackled this so it is worthwhile passing on his suggestion.
Russell wrote that if he were to say, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him just because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Similarly, if you were to say that a being with the head of a camel and the tail of a donkey, calling itself Allah, spoke to some Arab many centuries ago and dictated some notes then the burden of proof is on you, not on your listeners. If you amend your description to an intelligent, invisible being who is very wise, merciful and kind we still need proof. We don't need to prove there is no teapot and we don't need to prove there is no Allah.

It is possible to say we have no idea if beings with super-intelligence exist but we can reasonably affirm that the beings called Yahweh and Allah are clearly fictional, since they bear the human traits of their creators. Allah even has a storeroom to house his green beige couches possibly somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. Is this sensible? And we are asked to prove such nonsense is not fact.

[Bust Nak]

No you're following no designer. Toward the side of the scales where there has never been something from nothing and trying to explain the beginning of life with the 'nothing' on the scales. Do you know what something times nothing is? Nothing.

If it wasn't clear before, let me be very clear now: The actual scales isn't as you described. You think I am not going with the scale because you have an mistaken impression of what is on the scales: There is overwhelming evidence for evolution while there is none for intelligent designer, of course I am following no designer.

Um no. You're being dishonest with me again. The life didn't come on it's own from nothing. Humans made it. That's intelligence making something. Certainly you agree, remove the humans (the intelligence) and nothing is made. If you disagree then you're being intellectually dishonest and we are done here.

I wish you'd stop this talk with dishonesty. I have been extreme open with you. Anyway, my point is the "life coming from nothing" that creationists are fighting against, is a misnomer, it isn't life from absolutely nothing, but life from pre-existing non-life material. And these scientists you linked to, have proved that life need not be the product of live biological parents, they have prove that life can indeed come from pre-existing non-life material.

I am telling you, 100% seriously, 100% straight face, the actual chemical reaction that went on during the production of those synthetic life happens just the same if you remove the humans. There is nothing intellectually dishonest with what I stated here. As an example, if I tell you water froms naturally with no intelligent designer, then used the hydrogen filled balloon experiment to prove my point, you wouldn't turn around and say, "aha! You are the intelligent designer!" And had you have done that, you would be the one being intellectually dishonest, no?

Don't just forget about what I am telling you here, even if you are done with me. Think about what I said carefully.

[2timothy316]

Sciences (Intelligent life) make synthetic life all the time. So the scales tip to intelligent life.

So if intelligent life created life...what created intelligent life? You haven't solved the problem, you just added another life form that needs to be accounted for. If the question is "What created life?" the answer cannot be "Life". That's redundant.

Isn't it worth looking into if that is where the evidence leads and the other is a dead end? You're right that does mean there is another life form might need to be account for. It's not me that added it though. It's where the evidence points. So that leaves us with what? The unaccounted life form isn't making daily appearances on the news. So indeed how do we move forward? Where one goes next is where a person is really tested if they want more knowledge or not. No matter the source.

Now if we know that simple chemicals can be put together to form life, why would we assume that an intelligent life form would have to be present? Especially when those chemicals are naturally attracted to each other? Why would we assume that it couldn't just happen by itself?

But now we're veering away from evolution and into abiogenesis, which is off topic.

Because it's an assumption that has never been observed. As soon as it is observed I know I want to be there. Then you'd have something for your side of the scales. Abiogenesis is on topic because abiogenesis is a cornerstone of atheism. The thread title is Atheists believe there is no God'. Well then I'd imagine abiogenesis would be a huge determining factor for lets say a person that has not yet decided if they are going to be an atheist. Just like for you if God came down to Earth and started making animals you'd certainly have some exciting evidence to mull over. If I observed a life-form coming from nothing in every lab experiment made I'd certainly have something to mull over too.

Life coming from one ancestor has not been observed since that early cellar record is very poor.

Which is why genetics is such an important tool in mapping the history of life on Earth.

But it's not enough. Mankind is 60% banana. 80% cow. Even a 3% difference is a huge difference between us and a rat. We are in the kiddie pool in genetics. If a person puts on the evolution colored glasses everything they see will look like evolution. Then they are shocked and amazed when something doesn't pan out.

[paarsurrey1]

Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position ,please?

in a word, yes. Which makes it one of the easiest position to defend.

Atheist don't defend they are just masters of not answering.

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend� their “animal� nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism�.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

I liked one's post and it is to the point and very reasonable. Kindly allow me to publish it on my blog, please.

Regards

[Rufus21]

Isn't it worth looking into if that is where the evidence leads and the other is a dead end?

Absolutely, but you're still not seeing that the creationist side is the "something from nothing" side. None of us are making that claim and we do not believe it. As others have said, your concept of evolution is not accurate. You are arguing against something that does not exist. You are wrestling a straw man and bragging about victory.

If I observed a life-form coming from nothing in every lab experiment made I'd certainly have something to mull over too.

So when those scientists are making synthetic life, are they actually creating the life or are they just combining the proper chemicals and allowing them to form themselves? Are all of the chemical reactions happening naturally or are the scientists somehow doing something supernatural? Would those same chemicals have the same reaction if the scientists weren't there?

If a person puts on the evolution colored glasses everything they see will look like evolution. Then they are shocked and amazed when something doesn't pan out.

When has it ever "not panned out"? When has there ever been a single piece of paleontological, biological, anatomical, biogeographical, genetic, or any other evidence that doesn't fully support evolution? Anything at all?

This brings us back the the fact that you admit to being biased but then accuse everyone else just because they disagree with you. If we cannot overcome this fact then we cannot have an intelligent debate.

[2timothy316]

Isn't it worth looking into if that is where the evidence leads and the other is a dead end?

Absolutely, but you're still not seeing that the creationist side is the "something from nothing" side. None of us are making that claim and we do not believe it. As others have said, your concept of evolution is not accurate. You are arguing against something that does not exist. You are wrestling a straw man and bragging about victory.

Evolution and abiogenesis is not the same thing. 'Something from nothing' is not what evolution is trying to explain. Who's concept of evolution is not accurate? Abiogensis isn't possible.

If I observed a life-form coming from nothing in every lab experiment made I'd certainly have something to mull over too.

So when those scientists are making synthetic life, are they actually creating the life or are they just combining the proper chemicals and allowing them to form themselves? Are all of the chemical reactions happening naturally or are the scientists somehow doing something supernatural? Would those same chemicals have the same reaction if the scientists weren't there?

Interesting that you're asking me, because would think that you'd already would know about this kind of experiment. Google 'scientist create dna'. There are articles describing how they did it. However, I couldn't find an article where dna creates itself. That would be huge news I would think and plastered on every message board in the world.

If a person puts on the evolution colored glasses everything they see will look like evolution. Then they are shocked and amazed when something doesn't pan out.

When has it ever "not panned out"? When has there ever been a single piece of paleontological, biological, anatomical, biogeographical, genetic, or any other evidence that doesn't fully support evolution? Anything at all?

This brings us back the the fact that you admit to being biased but then accuse everyone else just because they disagree with you. If we cannot overcome this fact then we cannot have an intelligent debate.

Well, if people keep the evolution glasses on then yes I agree, there is no intelligent debate to be had due to someone being biased. But the topic of this thread is not really about evolution. Yet for some reason that's all people want to talk about, yes biased indeed. For some reason I see people in the middle of deep sleep crying out 'evolution!!' then going back to sleep.

[2timothy316]

No you're following no designer. Toward the side of the scales where there has never been something from nothing and trying to explain the beginning of life with the 'nothing' on the scales. Do you know what something times nothing is? Nothing.

If it wasn't clear before, let me be very clear now: The actual scales isn't as you described. You think I am not going with the scale because you have an mistaken impression of what is on the scales: There is overwhelming evidence for evolution while there is none for intelligent designer, of course I am following no designer.

But that is not what they scales are measuring. Look back at my post and see how your changing what is being measured.
viewtopic.php?p=892045#892045

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

The scales are measuring evidence for things coming from living things. It's not the scales for evolution but seems to all you see and want to talk about is evolution. That is not what the topic is about. It's not what the scales are measuring. The scales are for abiogenesis. Which the thing that has any weight is life coming from life.

[Rufus21]

So when those scientists are making synthetic life, are they actually creating the life or are they just combining the proper chemicals and allowing them to form themselves? Are all of the chemical reactions happening naturally or are the scientists somehow doing something supernatural? Would those same chemicals have the same reaction if the scientists weren't there?

Interesting that you're asking me, because would think that you'd already would know about this kind of experiment.

I have read a few articles but I haven't read anything about scientists doing anything supernatural. I was hoping you had some evidence that the chemical process could not happen naturally by itself. There seems to be no evidence that the process requires an intelligent creator.

But the topic of this thread is not really about evolution. Yet for some reason that's all people want to talk about

Okay, let's get back to abiogenesis. I propose that humans created life on Earth. On one side of the scale we know for a fact that it can, and does, happen. On the other side of the scale we have never seen any other creator of life. Do we go with the facts or do we invent a supernatural deity?