6 ms·

This is a great piece and I have bought the book. I'm expecting that in the decades ahead we will begin to see conferences on the conflict between science and

This is a great piece and I have bought the book. I'm expecting that in the decades ahead we will begin to see conferences on the conflict between science and atheism. Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis, but there are still many common uneducated people who think atheism is a scientifically viable stance, and this perspective can even be found among academics who have not kept up with the latest advancements.

cosymoments 3y ago
[dead]
dickersnoodle 3y ago
>Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes. Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person." Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket. Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
- jononomo 3y ago
  Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God. I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
  - Zickzack 3y ago
    Let us assume there were no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. Yet, "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence god exists" would still be a non sequitur. You have to brush up your Logic, and it is not meant as a 'take that'. If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps. Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
    - cosymoments 3y ago
      [dead]
    - jononomo 3y ago
      There is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life: a creative God. As for Zeus vs Allah, etc, I'm just not interested. Everyone knows God has ten thousand times ten thousand names and is in any case beyond our comprehension. Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap". Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.
QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
“We don’t know how rna can self replicate” implies “the creator of the universe gave birth to himself and then had himself tortured and killed and then brought back to life because the only conceivable alternative was for him to torture us all forever for being the way he made us”
- QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
  Its basic deductive logic, i have no idea how atheists don’t see it
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Do you regularly provide commentary to your own arguments with strangers?
    - QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
      The purpose of the comment break was to add comedic timing, but I see how it could look like fake additional support for my view. I will stick to one comment going forward.
- jononomo 3y ago
  [flagged]
rockemsockem 3y ago
You don't exactly sound like the type of person who would have needed convincing that atheism is not "a serious hypothesis". So are you really someone who can declare that with any credibility? This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.
- jononomo 3y ago
  The existence of life is a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God.
  - kbrkbr 3y ago
    A proof is usually some premises together with a conclusion, such that the premises are true or accepted, and it is not possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is not - usually for formal reasons. I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons. Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods. And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
    - jononomo 3y ago
      Thank you. The fact that it cannot be true that "life exists and no god exists" sums up the situation perfectly. We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.
      - rockemsockem 3y ago
        I think you misread the comment you replied to.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    Is the existence of God a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God^2?

cosymoments 3y ago

[dead]

dickersnoodle 3y ago

>Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes. Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person." Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket. Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.

jononomo 3y ago
Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God. I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
- Zickzack 3y ago
  Let us assume there were no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. Yet, "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence god exists" would still be a non sequitur. You have to brush up your Logic, and it is not meant as a 'take that'. If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps. Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
  - cosymoments 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jononomo 3y ago
    There is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life: a creative God. As for Zeus vs Allah, etc, I'm just not interested. Everyone knows God has ten thousand times ten thousand names and is in any case beyond our comprehension. Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap". Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.

QuadmasterXLII 3y ago

“We don’t know how rna can self replicate” implies “the creator of the universe gave birth to himself and then had himself tortured and killed and then brought back to life because the only conceivable alternative was for him to torture us all forever for being the way he made us”

QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
Its basic deductive logic, i have no idea how atheists don’t see it
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Do you regularly provide commentary to your own arguments with strangers?
  - QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
    The purpose of the comment break was to add comedic timing, but I see how it could look like fake additional support for my view. I will stick to one comment going forward.
jononomo 3y ago
[flagged]

rockemsockem 3y ago

You don't exactly sound like the type of person who would have needed convincing that atheism is not "a serious hypothesis". So are you really someone who can declare that with any credibility? This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.

jononomo 3y ago
The existence of life is a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God.
- kbrkbr 3y ago
  A proof is usually some premises together with a conclusion, such that the premises are true or accepted, and it is not possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is not - usually for formal reasons. I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons. Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods. And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
  - jononomo 3y ago
    Thank you. The fact that it cannot be true that "life exists and no god exists" sums up the situation perfectly. We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      I think you misread the comment you replied to.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  Is the existence of God a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God^2?