Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

[benchwarmer]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

This question honestly confuses me. Why would a lack of belief in gods somehow oblige anyone to have beliefs about something else?

Your question suggests that you believe atheism is a religion. Fortunately for atheists, they are not obliged to believe anything unlike their theistic brethren.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

First, it is a question, so "going behind" the question is speculative.

Second, I admit that my strong suit is not science. But from my experience, most atheists believe in the Big Bang. But the Big Bang theory seems to require Abiogenesis; that is, life came from non-life with no external assistance.

So, I'll put it another way, are atheists (which by definition has to do with God and not necessarily with zoology, cosmology, or any other physical science) obliged to accept a scientific theory which concludes that the organic springs up from the inorganic?



Of course, if you only mean that as an atheist you are not obliged to think at all about anything, I admit. I am addressing atheists with a developed philosophy.

[Divine Insight]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

I can't imagine any educated scientist who is knowledgeable of physics, chemistry and biology thinking that a rock would ever produce bacteria from itself.

That wouldn't be how abiogenesis occurred.

This is as misguided as thinking that evolution predicts that a random tornado hitting an old auto junkyard would sometimes produce a brand new car by pure random chance. That's just not how evolution works at all.

So no, a "materialist" would not be obliged to accept that a rock could produce bacteria from itself. And there is no credible "theory" that even remotely suggests that scenario for abiogenesis.

Also, the difference between organic and inorganic doesn't come into play until we get into complex molecules. In other words, the basic elements of the universe that we see in the period table are neither organic nor inorganic. They are simply atoms from which everything is made.

The distinction between organic and inorganic doesn't come into play until we're talking about far more complex molecules. And even then the distinction isn't always clear. It's more of a system of nomenclature to help us classify things than an actual property of nature.

In other words, it would be extremely difficult (possibly even impossible) to draw a precise and clear line between what is organic and what is inorganic. That distinction is more of a human convention.

In other words, everything in the universe is basically made of the same stuff. Whether it is organic or inorganic has more to do with how it has been arranged than anything else.

So "organic material" is imply "inorganic material" arranged in very complex ways. And evolution explains why this occurs naturally.

So there's really no problem for "Materialists". Although most people probably wouldn't use that label today. Instead they are more likely to call themselves "Naturalists".

[Neatras]

i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

liamconnor, you have just shown a sincere lack of intellectual integrity. In your last forum thread titled "Abiogenesis," you asked for the accuracy of the statement that "a rock could produce life." I, and many others, dispelled the myth that abiogenesis claims that life arose from rocks.

You have just regurgitated that myth as if to make it sound like an absurd position that atheists ("materialists") take, when that isn't the case. I rebuke your unprofessional and dishonest tactic of misrepresenting the arguments and beliefs of the non-theists on this site.

There is no "in theory" to bacteria arising from rocks. That position not only requires a supreme lack of education on the subject of biology, but also a total dismissal of all the evidence and arguments I and many others have provided.

When you last made your abiogenesis thread, I took that as a sign of maturity and curiosity, a rigorous attempt to uncover the position of scientists. What I see now is that you will continue to misrepresent science. Your question is loaded.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by Neatras]

I don't remember the last thread. It was probably a long time ago. I post on numerous threads. I confess I often forget to go back to some and check. There is no need to assume I have purposefully ignored anything.


So, back to the question (rather than mud-flinging)

What non-theistic theory do you hold, and how does it account for life?

[Divine Insight]

What non-theistic theory do you hold, and how does it account for life?

Physics and chemistry account for everything in the universe including life. If we were interested in entertaining a theology it would need to be a theology that is in harmony with physics and chemistry. Hebrew mythology does not meet that criteria.

Something along the lines of Buddhism, Taoism, or some other pantheistic worldview would be required if we wanted to consider a theology that has any potential of possibly being true. Gods like Zeus, Yahweh, Apollo, Jesus or Allah simply don't qualify. All those Gods are clearly nothing more than very poorly made up superstitions.

Also, we could hardly turn to a theology for an "explanation" of anything. Theologies assume the existence of an unexplained "God". And therefore theology doesn't offer an explanation in any case.

Proposing that some "God" exists is hardly an explanation for anything. An unexplained "explanation" is no explanation at all.

It makes no sense to claim that you have "explained" abiogenesis by proposing a totally unexplained entity. That's ridiculous.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

First, it is a question, so "going behind" the question is speculative.

Ok, well the short answer is "No". Atheists are not obliged to believe anything. What or who would cause this obligation?

Second, I admit that my strong suit is not science. But from my experience, most atheists believe in the Big Bang. But the Big Bang theory seems to require Abiogenesis; that is, life came from non-life with no external assistance.

Thinking that the Big Bang and Abiogenesis have anything to do with each other is the problem here. The only thing they have in common is that they are broad theories which the scientific community have postulated.

So, I'll put it another way, are atheists (which by definition has to do with God and not necessarily with zoology, cosmology, or any other physical science) obliged to accept a scientific theory which concludes that the organic springs up from the inorganic?

You're still making the same mistake. Where is this obligation coming from? Do you think atheists gather and receive doctrine which must be followed otherwise they will be labeled theists?

Of course, if you only mean that as an atheist you are not obliged to think at all about anything, I admit. I am addressing atheists with a developed philosophy.

Except you are not talking about thinking, you are talking about obligation.

You also clearly haven't taken two minutes and googled abiogenesis if you think bacteria springing from rocks in a closed environment is what the term refers to.

[benchwarmer]

What non-theistic theory do you hold, and how does it account for life?

What theistic or non-theistic theory do you hold that accounts for the appearance of a god who in turn accounts for the appearance of life?

All you do is move the goal posts and are left with an unaccounted for creation of a god.

[Bust Nak]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic?

No, but it is very common for atheists to be naturalists. As naturalists we do accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic.

What non-theistic theory do you hold, and how does it account for life?

There isn't one yet. Abiogenesis isn't in itself a scientific theory, rather it is an area of research.

Now a question from me, you used the phrase "obliged to accept" multiple times and it seems rather odd to me. "I believe in A, therefore it makes me an A-ist" makes sense to me, but "I am an A-ist, that means I am obliged to believe A" doesn't make sense. I think you have the cause and effect backwards:

What if anything, are Christians obliged to accept? Isn't it more accurate to say, people who believe [*insert Christian dogma here*] are called Christians?