3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoLet 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 agoThere 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.