The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Come to think of it, I was raised among many so-called "non-practicing Catholics".

I suspect that a significant percentage of those were not really theists. Even today it takes a bit of courage and acceptance of unnecessary bother to openly "out" oneself as a non-believer in such a social environment, and if anything that was even more true 15 years or so ago. I have no doubt that many a person ends up curbing their positions on the minor matter of god-belief in order to participate in more significant initiatives from Catholics and other groups.

Heck, I was almost converted into the LDS Church "against my will" despite making it clear from the get-go that I am an atheist.

Add to that the people who simply don't feel strongly one way or another, and it becomes clear that even in doctrines that technically have no provision for non-theists (Christianity, Islaam, arguably Judaism) the reality is considerably more complicated.

Having a place for loved ones may easily (and IMO should automatically) trump matters of doctrinary "purity" on what is ultimately a simple matter of strictly personal preference.

It is becoming increasingly recognized that there are cultural Christians that really have no god belief, but are comfortable in Christian culture and call themselves Christians, a phenomenon well-known in the case of many if not most Jews.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It isn't their core belief that makes them "new", it is their attitude, anger, style, and in many cases poor scholarship. One prominent atheist said of Dawkins attack on some books of the OT, " this is the worst defense of atheism I have ever read". For the most part, because they let emotion get in the way, many of their arguments are easily refuted. Whether you like it or not, "new atheism" is an accepted term used by many atheists, as well as believers. Perhaps you should research it, and learn a little more about the world of atheism away from here, and as the
atheist scholars and writers see it.

There is nothing new in atheism. It has always been and still is the "No" answer to the question whether one believes in a god or gods, theism always having been and still being the "Yes" answer.

What is new is that atheists now have a voice and a chance to tell organized Christianity what we think about it, as well as higher level of social acceptability.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Attitude? Anger? Don't throw rocks in glass houses.

It's somewhat amusing to read theists condemning atheists for "incessant arguing" and hostility against Christianity even as we cheerfully and respectfully disagree with them while they dismissively tell us how angry we are, what we believe, and how we aren't qualified to disagree.

Your avatar is Daria, right?

 

[shmogie]

The most fundamental Christian belief is that you must submit to the will of the Christian god or suffer the consequences.

Another fundamental belief derived from the first is that good and evil are determined by what God does or commands. If God says to dash infants against the rocks, it becomes good to do it and sin to refuse.

Another fundamental belief is that man is inherently spiritually sick from birth and needs a cure.

Another is that the world is inherently evil, and that the Christian should remain detached from it.

I don't where any of those fundamental beliefs relate to the Golden Rule.

You are confusing the OT history of Israel with the NT teachings of Jesus, the new covenant.
Your first statement is slightly true. The world is on an inevitable path that will not be changed. You are totally free to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation from the worlds ultimate demise, itś all up to you.

Your second statement might be found somewhere in the OT as history under the first covenant. Under the second covenant it is of no account or import, cannot happen.

Spiritually sick, no. Out of harmony with God, yes

Yes, there is much evil in the world. Inherently evil, no, a world out of harmony with God, a world where there is much good as well
Paul said ¨ you must be in the world but not part of the world¨. What does that mean ? I don go to bars and get falling down drunk, I refrain that part of the world. I don steal or murder, I refrain from that part of the world. However, I give significantly more to charities than the average American, most non Christian, I participate in that part of the world. I vote, watch the news, play golf am active here and elsewhere, I participate in those parts of the world

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can one continue a discussion when the response is "no you are wrong" ?

Now that's funny coming from you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think this war sucks personally. people should be above it.

The struggle to which you refer is the church attempting to pierce the church-state wall to impose its values on a nation that includes many non-Christians, a program of demeaning, marginalizing, and scapegoating various target groups such as women, LGBT, and atheists, an anti-intellectual program that has Christians demeaning higher education and pulling their kids out of public school because evolution is taught there while trying to inject creationism into the public school science texts, and various other sins that define the church as a poor neighbor. It's not welcome in my life, which it would love to overrun like kudzu.

Secularists of all stripes including theists that respect basic the basic American principle of church-state separation object to this behavior, and are fighting back. It is a legitimate reaction - a civic duty even.

science is assuming a God authority in trampling on free will, and philosophy, and religion altogether.

That an odd claim. Science is nothing but a method for understanding physical reality, and the body of discoveries that it has uncovered.

The overwhelming pattern on all sides is submit or get run over

No, that's the church's political and cultural agenda, which as I just noted, intends to impose itself on the rest of us if it can. Secular humanists just say, "Back off." We don't require the church to submit to anything but the law.

 

[Jesster]

It's somewhat amusing to read theists condemning atheists for "incessant arguing" and hostility against Christianity even as we cheerfully and respectfully disagree with them while they dismissively tell us how angry we are, what we believe, and how we aren't qualified to disagree.

Yeah, I actually came to this forum to get along with theists. I guess I should have expected more of the same from some of them, though. I was foolish to think otherwise. Luckily there are still others here who don't just want to treat atheists like trash as soon as we identify as such, so I'll just go talk to them instead.

Your avatar is Daria, right?

You got it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is not a minority bub. Nonreligious people are the 3rd largest group and many of which are atheists and this is not counting the vast amount of closeted ones or ones identifying otherwise. We atheists are a massive and growing bunch who will wreck religion entirely.

The internet is where religion goes to die and for good reason.

I agree with most of what you said, but your manner gives ammunition to our detractors. I just finished posting that we have been the respectful ones with the theists, who are emotional and in attack mode.

I say most of what you said because I don't think that atheists will be the reason that the church loses its cultural hegemony. Nor do I think it will die. It will assume its rightful place beside all of the other religions that cannot affect the lives of unwilling unbelievers.

What has been and will continue to be the undoing of the church is modern telecommunications including the news media and the Internet as the sins and blemishes of conservative Christianity are exposed, and the march of science.

We can pile on and accelerate the process, but I can see no reason to think that it wouldn't continue without our input.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are totally free to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation from the worlds ultimate demise, itś all up to you.

I get that from the Muslims as well. I bet that you do, too. They tell me that I'll stand before Allah and be condemned for not having obeyed His commandments, and that I will have no excuse on that day inasmuch as I had access to all of the same information that they did.

What do you tell them when they say that, or if it hasn't been said to you, what would your reaction be?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is becoming increasingly recognized that there are cultural Christians that really have no god belief, but are comfortable in Christian culture and call themselves Christians, a phenomenon well-known in the case of many if not most Jews.

I have no doubt that those are real and frequent among Brazilian Catholics at the very least.

Quite a few fall just short of apologizing for claiming adherence to Catholicism, sometimes explaining that it is mostly a matter of avoiding attriction with other people.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks for reframing. Religious people are genuine in the lies they adhere to.

Sounds like an excuse for atheist "morality".

I do not think it an excuse for atheist morality. Does it hurt your worldview to realize that not all atheists are villifyimg theists?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If they SAY they are a Christian, you immediately accept them as one. This makes your evaluation TOTALLY based upon their word.

Yes, for some things, words are enough. If somebody tells me that they are sorry, I accept them at their word. If they tell me that they are awake, I believe them. If they tell me that they are a Christian, I believe them. If I tell them that I am an atheist, they usually believe me.

Would you begin giving information to someone who SAYS he is an FBI agent ? Would you accept him as one because he says he is one ? So why the totally bizarre judgement based solely on what someone says ?

False analogy. There are reasons to lie to me about being an FBI agent, and there are consequences for falsely believing that they are one. Non-Christians don't have a reason to lie and pretend to believe something that they don't, nor would there consequences for believing one that did.

The ONLY way to identify a Christian is by their deed

We have different definitions of what constitutes a Christian.

a phobia is an irrational fear. I know no Christian that is afraid of a homosexual.

The meaning of that suffix has been expanded from the psychiatric one that you cite. It now refers to hatred or bigotry as well.

Also, there's this from Wayne Allyn Root about transgendered people in the military:

“You don’t get to fight in the military,” Root proclaimed. “Where does the U.S. Constitution say you have a right to not know if you have a penis or a vagina and sit in a fox hole and shoot people? ‘Cause you don’t have what it takes to sit in a fox hole and shoot people and the other men who do, don’t want to sit in a fox hole with you; they’re scared of you. They’re not scared of murdering communists, they’re not scared of crazy, murdering, set-you-on-fire Muslims, they’re scared of you who don’t know if you have a penis or a vagina! That’s who scares most straight men! Sorry to tell you. They don’t want to be near you. It’s like a freaking Nightmare on Elm Street if they see a bunch of transgenders walking towards them who don’t know if they are a man or a woman.”​

Second, the Biblical standard for relating to homosexuals is very simple, outside the Church they are to be treated with respect and graciousness like any other person. They may attend services, but cannot be members. A person practicing homosexuality inside the Church is counseled to remain celibate, or surrender membership, thatś it !

That's bigotry right there pure and simple, and it's not even the start of what actually occurs.

I am not about to compromise my faith for your sense of social justice.

Nor will I give anybody a pass for bigotry, even those that feel compelled by a book to be bigots.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yeah, I actually came to this forum to get along with theists. I guess I should have expected more of the same from some of them, though. I was foolish to think otherwise. Luckily there are still others here who don't just want to treat atheists like trash as soon as we identify as such, so I'll just go talk to them instead.

I find most of Christians and just about all of the non-Christians here easy enough to get along with as I do in meat space.

I used to post on another discussion site with a different culture. The Christians there were very often rabid and hostile. How can I account for that? Do the two sites draw different kinds of people, which seems unlikely, or is there simply less reason to conceal feelings on one site than the other? I don't know.

You could see them transforming on that other site. They'd enter with a demeanor similar to one you'd see here, and often become progressively nastier as they sensed that it was acceptable, just as the expression of racism in America has ramped up now that its president is giving people permission to express their hatred more openly. People aren't becoming more racist. They just feel less compelled to conceal it. I think that that is what I was witnessing on that other site.

 

[Desert Snake]

The most fundamental Christian belief is that you must submit to the will of the Christian god or suffer the consequences.

Another fundamental belief derived from the first is that good and evil are determined by what God does or commands. If God says to dash infants against the rocks, it becomes good to do it and sin to refuse.

Another fundamental belief is that man is inherently spiritually sick from birth and needs a cure.

You are probably referring to original sin ,or inherited sin. Although there can be an idea that is similar to this in some non-catholic churches, that (inherited sin), is actually a catholic church doctrine, adherence.
There is the fact that people do sin, /are you sinless?
Hence, salvation is always necessary.

Another is that the world is inherently evil, and that the Christian should remain detached from it.

I don't where any of those fundamental beliefs relate to the Golden Rule.

 

[shmogie]

m

When I say 'fundamentalism' I mean the belief that every word in the bible is divinely inspired and thus literally true. Neither the Tanakh nor the NT makes any such claim for itself, so it's someone's invention.

And it's the source of all fundamentalism's problems, since it results in countless falsifiable claims that are easily falsified. The earth is NOT flat. The sun does NOT go round it. It did NOT exist before the stars did. It IS about 4.5 bn years old. Plants did NOT exist before the sun did. Birds did NOT exist before land animals did. The theory of evolution accurately describes the development of life on earth and grows stronger all the time.

Why would anyone wishing humanity well want to see fundamentalist nonsense taught to children?

Fundamentalists, if the two or so I've met face to face and the many I've met on the net are any example, are terrified of other ideas, of different views, of challenges to the literal bible, which they read as challenges to their personal salvation, their key to heaven. As for a closed mind, if you have a mind even slightly open, you'll see the bible says the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, just as its authors thought, and that the earth isn't flat, and the sun doesn't go around it. But instead, they create an industry of rationalizing and pretending that black is white ─ at the same time contending the bible's literally true.

If you're happy to teach your children as true, things that are demonstrably false statements about reality, if you think it's good to teach children that their loving god is going to pitch them into the lake of fire for eternity, and that science is a huge dishonest conspiracy, then I can't stop you. But I can't say it strikes me as admirable.
Excellent. Then put me out of my misery. Tell me what a real god is, a god with objective existence, a god out there independent of anyone's imagination. Then tell me why, if this god has objective existence, you can't give me a credible demonstration of its reality. Why it never says or does anything. Tell me the test ─ the objective test, one that anyone can use, believer or not ─ that will tell us whether any real being or phenomenon we encounter is a god or not.
The idea is perfectly coherent ─ that there's a natural pathway from chemistry to life. And work on this perfectly coherent idea is going on all the time, and you can read about progress in the science press. Do you read the science press? No one pretends success yet, but then, no one's yet proved Riemann's hypothesis either. The world is full of things yet to be done.

On what science-based ground do you say our attempts to understand abiogenesis must fail?

If science demonstrates abiogenesis in the lab, will you give up your faith?

That's just the argument from incredulity, a fallacy, a subjective reaction that doesn't lead to any conclusion about reality. You need understanding and evidence to argue with science about real things.

If you don';t mind, I am going to respond to your post in pieces. As always, the atheists are stirred up and on the warpath, so I have a lot of responses to post. You say that neither the OT or NT state that they are inerrant or infallible, that is correct, those words in Hebrew or NT Greek are never used. However, that is not the whole story, by far. 2 Timothy 3;16 ESV " All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness." He, of course was speaking of the OT, but it applies to both OT and NT. 1 Thess. 2:13" And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers". This is the NT, the Apostles. I have many more verses along this line, but these two are perfect examples. S, whatr you are proposing is this

When I say 'fundamentalism' I mean the belief that every word in the bible is divinely inspired and thus literally true. Neither the Tanakh nor the NT makes any such claim for itself, so it's someone's invention.

And it's the source of all fundamentalism's problems, since it results in countless falsifiable claims that are easily falsified. The earth is NOT flat. The sun does NOT go round it. It did NOT exist before the stars did. It IS about 4.5 bn years old. Plants did NOT exist before the sun did. Birds did NOT exist before land animals did. The theory of evolution accurately describes the development of life on earth and grows stronger all the time.

Why would anyone wishing humanity well want to see fundamentalist nonsense taught to children?

Fundamentalists, if the two or so I've met face to face and the many I've met on the net are any example, are terrified of other ideas, of different views, of challenges to the literal bible, which they read as challenges to their personal salvation, their key to heaven. As for a closed mind, if you have a mind even slightly open, you'll see the bible says the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, just as its authors thought, and that the earth isn't flat, and the sun doesn't go around it. But instead, they create an industry of rationalizing and pretending that black is white ─ at the same time contending the bible's literally true.

If you're happy to teach your children as true, things that are demonstrably false statements about reality, if you think it's good to teach children that their loving god is going to pitch them into the lake of fire for eternity, and that science is a huge dishonest conspiracy, then I can't stop you. But I can't say it strikes me as admirable.
Excellent. Then put me out of my misery. Tell me what a real god is, a god with objective existence, a god out there independent of anyone's imagination. Then tell me why, if this god has objective existence, you can't give me a credible demonstration of its reality. Why it never says or does anything. Tell me the test ─ the objective test, one that anyone can use, believer or not ─ that will tell us whether any real being or phenomenon we encounter is a god or not.
The idea is perfectly coherent ─ that there's a natural pathway from chemistry to life. And work on this perfectly coherent idea is going on all the time, and you can read about progress in the science press. Do you read the science press? No one pretends success yet, but then, no one's yet proved Riemann's hypothesis either. The world is full of things yet to be done.

On what science-based ground do you say our attempts to understand abiogenesis must fail?

If science demonstrates abiogenesis in the lab, will you give up your faith?

That's just the argument from incredulity, a fallacy, a subjective reaction that doesn't lead to any conclusion about reality. You need understanding and evidence to argue with science about real things.

I am going to take your post in pieces, beginning with abiogenesis NO there is no natural pathway from chemistry to life. A fallacy based on hopes and wishes, nothing more. As genetics advances, we learn that even the simplest creatures are extremely complicated. Even the simplest life form has a set of instructions, i.e.information, within it that allows it to function. A genetic code of chains of information absolutely perfect for the operation of the organism, in the exact proper order for it to function. Thousands of bits of information in order, with the bits, or order, the organism could not function. Each organism has a "reader" within it that these genes must fit into, that reads the code and activates the instructions for the functioning. " the "reader", I forget the genetic word for it now, is very species oriented, it won't accept genetic code from other organisms, and it operates from the code by releasing a huge series of proteins and acids. So, in the alleged primordial soup, with all the chemicals allegedly floating around, the absolute perfect code of operation, information, would have to exist in proper order, thousands of bits, for a creature that didn't exist, because it would die immediately without this information. Now,the organism would have to develop an operating system that could read the operating instructions, that the operating instructions (thousands of bits of exactly ordered DNA, or, whatever) fit into perfectly. The organism would have to have all the correct chains of acids and proteins in the operating system to carry out the genetic instructions. Now, the models of the alleged early earth present some very serious problems for abiogenesis as simply as it was originally construed. Different atmospheric gasses, UV light, no UV light, etc., etc. in various combinations are hostile to life. So even the primitive idea of abiogenesis of the 1950's was problematic.

Today, NO ONE can explain where the information came from to operate that first chemical to life transition. NO ONE can explain how that bit of life had an operating system that the information that no one can explain would work in. Keep in mind, this is all supposed to have happened by blind chance, with no determiner, just a bunch of crap in water reacting to the environment. What people will accept boggles the mind.

Actually, there has been an organism ( single cell) created in a lab. It took teams of scientists of various disciplines 9 years to produce, and they had to use the manipulated DNA from another organism to make it work. That is intelligent design, not abiogenesis.

 

[shmogie]

m

If you don';t mind, I am going to respond to your post in pieces. As always, the atheists are stirred up and on the warpath, so I have a lot of responses to post. You say that neither the OT or NT state that they are inerrant or infallible, that is correct, those words in Hebrew or NT Greek are never used. However, that is not the whole story, by far. 2 Timothy 3;16 ESV " All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness." He, of course was speaking of the OT, but it applies to both OT and NT. 1 Thess. 2:13" And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers". This is the NT, the Apostles. I have many more verses along this line, but these two are perfect examples. S, whatr you are proposing is this

I am going to take your post in pieces, beginning with abiogenesis NO there is no natural pathway from chemistry to life. A fallacy based on hopes and wishes, nothing more. As genetics advances, we learn that even the simplest creatures are extremely complicated. Even the simplest life form has a set of instructions, i.e.information, within it that allows it to function. A genetic code of chains of information absolutely perfect for the operation of the organism, in the exact proper order for it to function. Thousands of bits of information in order, with the bits, or order, the organism could not function. Each organism has a "reader" within it that these genes must fit into, that reads the code and activates the instructions for the functioning. " the "reader", I forget the genetic word for it now, is very species oriented, it won't accept genetic code from other organisms, and it operates from the code by releasing a huge series of proteins and acids. So, in the alleged primordial soup, with all the chemicals allegedly floating around, the absolute perfect code of operation, information, would have to exist in proper order, thousands of bits, for a creature that didn't exist, because it would die immediately without this information. Now,the organism would have to develop an operating system that could read the operating instructions, that the operating instructions (thousands of bits of exactly ordered DNA, or, whatever) fit into perfectly. The organism would have to have all the correct chains of acids and proteins in the operating system to carry out the genetic instructions. Now, the models of the alleged early earth present some very serious problems for abiogenesis as simply as it was originally construed. Different atmospheric gasses, UV light, no UV light, etc., etc. in various combinations are hostile to life. So even the primitive idea of abiogenesis of the 1950's was problematic.

Today, NO ONE can explain where the information came from to operate that first chemical to life transition. NO ONE can explain how that bit of life had an operating system that the information that no one can explain would work in. Keep in mind, this is all supposed to have happened by blind chance, with no determiner, just a bunch of crap in water reacting to the environment. What people will accept boggles the mind.

Actually, there has been an organism ( single cell) created in a lab. It took teams of scientists of various disciplines 9 years to produce, and they had to use the manipulated DNA from another organism to make it work. That is intelligent design, not abiogenesis.

Sorry, I screwed up again. I thought my first incomplete response was lost, thus the second, I am very clumsy around a keyboard, sorry again

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is the fact that people do sin, /are you sinless?
Hence, salvation is always necessary.

That's a religious position.

To me, sin is a word with no literal referent. I use the word metaphorically as I did in an earlier post on this thread ("What has been and will continue to be the undoing of the church is modern telecommunications including the news media and the Internet as the sins and blemishes of conservative Christianity are exposed, and the march of science."), but don't acknowledge the existence of any god, and therefore no literal sin.

So yes, like you and everybody else, I am sinless even if not blameless. I don't have any reason to believe that I require salvation, nor any reason to repent for being human even though I occasionally have to apologize to others.

Spoiler: Religious words with no literal referent that can be used metaphorically

[1] blasphemy

[2] sin

[3] soul

[4] holy

[5] divine

[6] sacred

[7] blessing

[8] grace

[10] angels and demons

[11] heaven

[12] hell

[13] salvation/redemption

[14] miracle

[15] spirit

[16] sacrilege

[17] evil

 

[shmogie]

Yes, for some things, words are enough. If somebody tells me that they are sorry, I accept them at their word. If they tell me that they are awake, I believe them. If they tell me that they are a Christian, I believe them. If I tell them that I am an atheist, they usually believe me.



False analogy. There are reasons to lie to me about being an FBI agent, and there are consequences for falsely believing that they are one. Non-Christians don't have a reason to lie and pretend to believe something that they don't, nor would there consequences for believing one that did.



We have different definitions of what constitutes a Christian.



The meaning of that suffix has been expanded from the psychiatric one that you cite. It now refers to hatred or bigotry as well.

Also, there's this from Wayne Allyn Root about transgendered people in the military:

“You don’t get to fight in the military,” Root proclaimed. “Where does the U.S. Constitution say you have a right to not know if you have a penis or a vagina and sit in a fox hole and shoot people? ‘Cause you don’t have what it takes to sit in a fox hole and shoot people and the other men who do, don’t want to sit in a fox hole with you; they’re scared of you. They’re not scared of murdering communists, they’re not scared of crazy, murdering, set-you-on-fire Muslims, they’re scared of you who don’t know if you have a penis or a vagina! That’s who scares most straight men! Sorry to tell you. They don’t want to be near you. It’s like a freaking Nightmare on Elm Street if they see a bunch of transgenders walking towards them who don’t know if they are a man or a woman.”​

That's bigotry right there pure and simple, and it's not even the start of what actually occurs.



Nor will I give anybody a pass for bigotry, even those that feel compelled by a book to be bigots.

Your quote, Soooo. Gender is a social term, not a scientific one. Except in VERY rare cases people are born as male or female, genetically. So, socially a "transgender person" has a desire to be perceived as a female or vice versa. So they have the slicing and dicing to make them feel better, which is absolutely their right. They can live as they choose. They then ask others to participate in their social transformation ( some do, some don't) Genetically, scientifically, they are still the sex they were born as, so the entire issue is a matter of what is going on in the brain. Nevertheless, it's cool, they can live as they choose. I know a man that changed his gender to a female, I knew him before and know him now. We always speak to one another have conversations, and he cracks up when I ask him if he is a lesbian now because he still lives with his wife with whom he fathered children. He also knows I am politically incorrect and don't choose to participate in his fantasy. He doesn't seem to have problems with that.

To the military. NO ONE has a RIGHT to serve in the military. The military excludes people for all kinds of reasons, because it determines they won't be effective in the military.s primary objective, killing, and may even be a detriment. Asthmatics, old people, too young people, HIV + people, flat footed people, color blind people, mentally impaired people, too short people, too tall people, people allergic to wool. people with celiac disease, people with specific religious food requirements, the list is endless. I have no feeling one way or the other on transgender people. Those already in, booting them out would be dead wrong. If the military determines they they are detrimental to unit cohesion, and thus effectiveness, assign the ones in to non combat roles, and accept no more. I know, I am a bigot, yawn...........

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am going to take your post in pieces, beginning with abiogenesis NO there is no natural pathway from chemistry to life. A fallacy based on hopes and wishes, nothing more. As genetics advances, we learn that even the simplest creatures are extremely complicated. Even the simplest life form has a set of instructions, i.e.information, within it that allows it to function. A genetic code of chains of information absolutely perfect for the operation of the organism, in the exact proper order for it to function. Thousands of bits of information in order, with the bits, or order, the organism could not function.

Argument from incredulity. You just don't see how it could have happened, therefore it didn't, ergo God, right? Isn't that your implied argument?

Each organism has a "reader" within it that these genes must fit into, that reads the code and activates the instructions for the functioning. " the "reader", I forget the genetic word for it now, is very species oriented, it won't accept genetic code from other organisms, and it operates from the code by releasing a huge series of proteins and acids.

You're probably referring to the ribosome, but there is also a "reader" in the nucleus - the enzymes that generate messenger RNA from DNA. This apparatus doesn't care where the DNA came from. If it came from a virus, the apparatus will begin generating viruses.

Today, NO ONE can explain where the information came from to operate that first chemical to life transition. NO ONE can explain how that bit of life had an operating system that the information that no one can explain would work in.

Scientists have an incomplete but growing understanding of chemical evolution. Religion has added zero understanding to the origin of life. Saying that God did it has no more explanatory power than saying that Norman did it, or that it did it by itself. More needs to be demonstrated.

Keep in mind, this is all supposed to have happened by blind chance, with no determiner, just a bunch of crap in water reacting to the environment

It possibly happened due unconscious forces passively acting out a cosmic play according to simple rules. The possibility not only hasn't been ruled out, it is at the top of the list for candidate hypotheses for the origin of life in our universe. The supernaturalisitc argument, which also cannot be ruled out, is a gross violation of Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony, and so ranks below the naturalisitic one.

Actually, there has been an organism ( single cell) created in a lab. It took teams of scientists of various disciplines 9 years to produce, and they had to use the manipulated DNA from another organism to make it work. That is intelligent design, not abiogenesis.

Nobody denies that the intelligent design of life is possible, a topic back in the news right now (genetic engineering). What is denied is that it has been demonstrated to be necessary.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, for some things, words are enough. If somebody tells me that they are sorry, I accept them at their word. If they tell me that they are awake, I believe them. If they tell me that they are a Christian, I believe them. If I tell them that I am an atheist, they usually believe me.



False analogy. There are reasons to lie to me about being an FBI agent, and there are consequences for falsely believing that they are one. Non-Christians don't have a reason to lie and pretend to believe something that they don't, nor would there consequences for believing one that did.



We have different definitions of what constitutes a Christian.



The meaning of that suffix has been expanded from the psychiatric one that you cite. It now refers to hatred or bigotry as well.

Also, there's this from Wayne Allyn Root about transgendered people in the military:

“You don’t get to fight in the military,” Root proclaimed. “Where does the U.S. Constitution say you have a right to not know if you have a penis or a vagina and sit in a fox hole and shoot people? ‘Cause you don’t have what it takes to sit in a fox hole and shoot people and the other men who do, don’t want to sit in a fox hole with you; they’re scared of you. They’re not scared of murdering communists, they’re not scared of crazy, murdering, set-you-on-fire Muslims, they’re scared of you who don’t know if you have a penis or a vagina! That’s who scares most straight men! Sorry to tell you. They don’t want to be near you. It’s like a freaking Nightmare on Elm Street if they see a bunch of transgenders walking towards them who don’t know if they are a man or a woman.”​

That's bigotry right there pure and simple, and it's not even the start of what actually occurs.



Nor will I give anybody a pass for bigotry, even those that feel compelled by a book to be bigots.

I have no need for a pass from you on anything. I think you left the USA, but I am glad I ( and I hope you) live in a country where I can live as I choose.