• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheist philosophy has any promise for people?

Medusa said:
if so why are believers always insulted by smarter atheists ?
Click to expand...

How would you be able to tell? Or do you know any such atheists? ;)
 
Medusa said:
if so why are believers always insulted by smarter atheists ?
Click to expand...

I don't insult believers. I disparage their beliefs. Can you see the difference?
 
I'll ignore the improper use of the word convert and address the other part of the question. I think the OP is asking why anyone would be an atheist when there is no promise of an afterlife, an ultimate Justice, being able to see your loved ones after death, and all the other attractive aspects of religion.

Sure, I would like to see my grandparents again. And I would love eternal life, for awhile at least.

I would also like to be able to fly. But I'm not going to jump off a building and flap my arms. Just because I WANT something to be true is not a reason to believe it is true. I prefer to view the world as it is rather than how I want it to be.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Believing that something as complex as even the simplest living organisms (need to be able to consume and metabolize food, procreate, ect) poofed together out of non-living chemicals should either garner the same level of ridicule or perhaps even higher.
Click to expand...

First of all, our understanding of the science continues to evolve each year. We get closer and closer to making life from non-life, though we are not quite there yet.

Secondly, is it wrong to say that God used evolution as a tool to create the universe? What is so wrong in reconciling the ideas of science with religion? Why does God have to magically poof everything? Why can't he have used evolution as one of his tools?
 
Fishking said:
Believing that something as complex as even the simplest living organisms (need to be able to consume and metabolize food, procreate, ect) poofed together out of non-living chemicals should either garner the same level of ridicule or perhaps even higher.
Click to expand...

How is believing a wizard *poofed* into existence then pointed his finger blaster and everything else *poofed* into existence as well more rational than science?
 
Medusa said:
you spend your time here by claiming there is no god,do you really think it seems logical to you?you spend your time for something that does not exist
Click to expand...

My time is my own. And there is nothing on TV nowadays.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How is believing a wizard *poofed* into existence then pointed his finger blaster and everything else *poofed* into existence as well more rational than science?
Click to expand...

Beats me.
 
zyzygy said:
Why could that not happen over millions and millions of years? Your disbelief is not proof.
Click to expand...

Because it defies established scientific theory that negates the concept of spontaneous generation of life or, under its other term, abiogenesis. As far as proof, you're on the same footing as a theist. There is no proof of abiogenesis similarly to how there isn't scientific proof of God.

As far as the "why couldn't that happen over millions of years" question...it can't. You don't develop life over millions of years. There is either life, or non-life. You don't have "kinda life". Any living organism would have to be able to have multiple functions that are complex in and of themselves (like the examples I gave earlier i.e. metabolism and procreation).
 
Visbek said:
I dunno. Why are so many atheists disparaged by religious people?

And I still don't know what you are asking in your initial post.
Click to expand...

I have no idea of what he was getting at in that initial post either.

The only thing it might be saying is something about atheistic proselytizing...which is virtually non-existent.
 
Medusa said:
if not why should we convert to atheism ?
Click to expand...

Atheism is just a default position, intellectually speaking. If you've had no personal experience with God you're naturally going to be atheistic because you see no evidence of His existence.
 
Fishking said:
Because it defies established scientific theory that negates the concept of spontaneous generation of life or, under its other term, abiogenesis. As far as proof, you're on the same footing as a theist. There is no proof of abiogenesis similarly to how there isn't scientific proof of God.

As far as the "why couldn't that happen over millions of years" question...it can't. You don't develop life over millions of years. There is either life, or non-life. You don't have "kinda life". Any living organism would have to be able to have multiple functions that are complex in and of themselves (like the examples I gave earlier i.e. metabolism and procreation).
Click to expand...

We clearly had species millions of years ago that don't exist today. And we clearly have species today that didn't exist in their current form millions of years ago. Fossil records prove this.
 
Fishking said:
Because it defies established scientific theory that negates the concept of spontaneous generation of life or, under its other term, abiogenesis. As far as proof, you're on the same footing as a theist. There is no proof of abiogenesis similarly to how there isn't scientific proof of God.

As far as the "why couldn't that happen over millions of years" question...it can't. You don't develop life over millions of years. There is either life, or non-life. You don't have "kinda life". Any living organism would have to be able to have multiple functions that are complex in and of themselves (like the examples I gave earlier i.e. metabolism and procreation).
Click to expand...

It is possible that god initiated the Big Bang and kick started life on Earth. All that is missing is any proof of that belief.
The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize.
 
akrunner88 said:
First of all, our understanding of the science continues to evolve each year. We get closer and closer to making life from non-life, though we are not quite there yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, our understanding grows every year and it seems were are actually living in a scientific boom where our understanding is growing in leaps. However, this has not changed established scientific fact that spontaneous generation of life is not a thing. At best, it's only a thing because people that do not believe in God(s) have no other recourse but to believe that's how it happened.

Secondly, is it wrong to say that God used evolution as a tool to create the universe? What is so wrong in reconciling the ideas of science with religion? Why does God have to magically poof everything? Why can't he have used evolution as one of his tools?
Click to expand...

No, that is not wrong. Evolution and various forms of theism, to include Christianity, do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, I'm talking about abiogenesis, which is not evolution. Evolution addresses how life has changed/mutated over time. It doesn't address how we got life to begin with.
 
Atheism being a philosophy assumes that atheism is a position, it is not. Society calls people whom ask for actual empirical evidence that could support the major religious claims before investing belief in those claims as "atheists."
 
Fishking said:
Yes, our understanding grows every year and it seems were are actually living in a scientific boom where our understanding is growing in leaps. However, this has not changed established scientific fact that spontaneous generation of life is not a thing. At best, it's only a thing because people that do not believe in God(s) have no other recourse but to believe that's how it happened.



No, that is not wrong. Evolution and various forms of theism, to include Christianity, do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, I'm talking about abiogenesis, which is not evolution. Evolution addresses how life has changed/mutated over time. It doesn't address how we got life to begin with.
Click to expand...

You are correct to assert that our inability to recreate abiogenesis is a valid criticism. But just because we aren't there yet doesn't mean we might not be there one day. Scientists are getting closer and closer and have created RNA in labs, along with certain proteins.

If we can create life from non-life in a lab, that will completely throw the world for a loop. I think we will get there one day.
 
Medusa said:
as usual
Click to expand...
Uhm... Okay.... Let me rephrase.

The question that you are trying to raise is unclear. Please clarify your question, and we can provide our answers.
 
Fishking said:
Yes, our understanding grows every year and it seems were are actually living in a scientific boom where our understanding is growing in leaps. However, this has not changed established scientific fact that spontaneous generation of life is not a thing. At best, it's only a thing because people that do not believe in God(s) have no other recourse but to believe that's how it happened.



No, that is not wrong. Evolution and various forms of theism, to include Christianity, do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, I'm talking about abiogenesis, which is not evolution. Evolution addresses how life has changed/mutated over time. It doesn't address how we got life to begin with.
Click to expand...

Believing that a god did it does not address the matter either.
 
zyzygy said:
It is possible that god initiated the Big Bang and kick started life on Earth. All that is missing is any proof of that belief.
The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but then that wouldn't be atheism. That would be some form of theism. I'm only addressing this point to highlight that atheists feeling they can ridicule theists' beliefs are not coming from more solid ground then those they are making fun of.
 
zyzygy said:
It is possible that god initiated the Big Bang and kick started life on Earth. All that is missing is any proof of that belief.
Click to expand...
the universe in which you have been living is already a proof however we do not need any proof to believe in a creator.it is not science.....
 
Visbek said:
Uhm... Okay.... Let me rephrase.

The question that you are trying to raise is unclear. Please clarify your question, and we can provide our answers.
Click to expand...

okay we still pretend to misunderstand

why should I be atheist instead of believer ?

it is enough ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom