• 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!

Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

Does water have a taste?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • Total voters
    25
digsbe said:
Tell me how believing millions of random DNA sequences survived a harsh environment and aligned themselves in the right order to code for sequences within a membrane that also so happened to have all the right amino acid sequences lined up and stable enough to function within the presence on tRNA to code for functional proteins.
Click to expand...

STOP! STOP! One gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles at a time.

The First Cell

After allowing the experiment to continue for a week, the results where startling. The previously colorless solution inside the apparatus had turned red. Upon analyzing the solution, Miller found many organic molecules present, some of which couldn't be readily identified. The most important of created compounds, however, where amino acids. This, in effect, proved Oparin's theory that organic compounds could have been created in the early atmosphere. Further studies showed that some amino acids would have combined with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is a byproduct of volcanic activity. This combination would form purines and pyrinidines, which are used to make nucleic acids, which in turn create DNA
Click to expand...

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deoxyribonucleic acid (en-us-Deoxyribonucleic_acid.ogg /diːˌɒksɨˌraɪbɵ.n(j)uːˈkleɪ.ɪk ˈæsɪd/ (help·info)) (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what are you going on about?

Also, how the life giving energy sparked the cell into life and not destroying it. It's vastly improbable.
Click to expand...

Life giving energy didn't spark any cell into life. Seriously kid, read up on your science. That's not what the Urrey experiment shows.

Aren't you doing the same?
Click to expand...

No. You are attributing a process to a creator. I am explaining a process without the need for a creator or any other unprovable origins.

Really? Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis
Click to expand...

Yes. Really. The argument they are making is the same as yours. One based on statistics and yet this is where you fail to understand a very basic principle of nature. As many possibilities are there might be the probabilities of events happening a single way are usually 1 to 1. Example, take a glass of water. Now pour it on the floor. What do you think is the probability that the water will not fall to the ground and stay floating in the air? There's probably a chance of it but it won't happen. What will happen nearly 100% of the time is that the water will simply fall to the ground and make a mess. Take a leaf from a tree. Say the leaf fell off a branch. What is the probability that it will turn into a bird and fly away? There's probably a chance but it's highly unlikely. The same explanation is given for why life needed to exist. The atmospheric and environmental conditions lent themselves for life to happen every time, all the time. Why don't we find life on Mars? What about Pluto? If there is a creator who can engineer life on earth why can't he do it elsewhere?

From personal experience I know that God exists. From scientific truths I know a Creator exists. I have explained how Creation points to a creator and have already said that God is not a physical piece of matter/energy that we can experiment with and test. God is above matter and created it. He isn't matter and cannot be manipulated. Similarly. You can't say all life started via abiogenesis even if by some chance it is proven true. You can't prove that life started that way devoid of a creator.
Click to expand...

This is all a subjective view of abiogenesis. It's not verifiable. You can't prove it in any way.

It does. You haven't disproven how because science and energy cannot be created nor destroyed that it doesn't point to something beyond science (God) to have created it. I look at evidence and what we know and make conclusions. I'm not arguing that complexity demands a creator. I am arguing that scientific law and order demands the need for a creator. The universe is limited. It can't create matter or energy, it also cannot destroy matter and energy. Matter and energy can change forms and are governed by laws. Rational observation has proven that energy and matter cannot be created. Thus is it also rational to believe something beyond science must have created energy and matter (God).
Click to expand...

The amount of misinformation in this is ridiculous. You're essentially arguing FROM IGNORANCE. The scientific evidence showing that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed shows just that, that it can't be created or destroyed. You make the illogical conclusion that if it can't be explained through physical means then there must be something else. Which you call a creator. This however is not a rational conclusion by any means. It's mysticism. It's no different than a viking being unable to explain lightning and saying that Thor made it. It's an argument F.R.O.M. I.G.N.O.R.A.N.C.E.

I will not respond to this. And also, abiogenesis has not been proven.
Click to expand...

Dude, it has. Learn some science. Please, for the love of God.
 
Hatuey said:
STOP! STOP! One gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles at a time.

The First Cell
Click to expand...
How does this apply to anything that I said? I am not talking about the structure of DNA molecules, I'm talking about DNA sequences and the amino acid makeups of proteins. Re-read what I posted.
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Seriously, what are you going on about?
Click to expand...
Again, re-read what I said. What you posted doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I know what DNA is and how it works, and because I know what it is and how it works I understand how fragile it is and how important a correct DNA sequence is in coding for functional proteins.

Life giving energy didn't spark any cell into life. Seriously kid, read up on your science. That's not what the Urrey experiment shows.
Click to expand...
The Urrey experiment is flawed. See my link.
No. You are attributing a process to a creator. I am explaining a process without the need for a creator or any other unprovable origins.
Click to expand...
That process cannot happen and cannot be proven as the stem of all life though. The process may exist in theory, but it's implausible.
Yes. Really. The argument they are making is the same as yours. One based on statistics and yet this is where you fail to understand a very basic principle of nature. As many possibilities are there might be the probabilities of events happening a single way are usually 1 to 1. Example, take a glass of water. Now pour it on the floor. What do you think is the probability that the water will not fall to the ground and stay floating in the air? There's probably a chance of it but it won't happen. What will happen nearly 100% of the time is that the water will simply fall to the ground and make a mess. Take a leaf from a tree. Say the leaf fell off a branch. What is the probability that it will turn into a bird and fly away? There's probably a chance but it's highly unlikely. The same explanation is given for why life needed to exist. The atmospheric and environmental conditions lent themselves for life to happen every time, all the time. Why don't we find life on Mars? What about Pluto? If there is a creator who can engineer life on earth why can't he do it elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Did you read the link? There is no possibility of a leaf turning into a bird under any natural circumstances. There is such a thing as impossible regardless of how many random chances you get. If life can randomly spawn, why don't we see it on other planets? You say that if there is a God who can create life on earth then why isn't life other places? What if it wasn't God's will to create life on other planets? Sure God can do it, that doesn't mean he has to and the absence of life on other planets does not mean that God didn't create life on earth and that all is just a random process.
This is all a subjective view of abiogenesis. It's not verifiable. You can't prove it in any way.
Click to expand...
Then why completely rule out that God could have created life? Why claim that abiogenesis did happen when you admit that it isn't verifiable?
The amount of misinformation in this is ridiculous. You're essentially arguing FROM IGNORANCE. The scientific evidence showing that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed shows just that, that it can't be created or destroyed. You make the illogical conclusion that if it can't be explained through physical means then there must be something else. Which you call a creator. This however is not a rational conclusion by any means. It's mysticism. It's no different than a viking being unable to explain lightning and saying that Thor made it. It's an argument F.R.O.M. I.G.N.O.R.A.N.C.E.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in having a respectful and rational discussion. I'd rather not continue this debate. You aren't addressing my points and I'm tired of being personally attacked. I respect you, I respect your views, but I am not interested in being attacked and having my points being ignored and substituted with how ignorant I am of science.
Dude, it has. Learn some science. Please, for the love of God.
Click to expand...
No it hasn't. Abiogenesis has not been proven. Even within the realm of the theory scientists still debate how the mechanism may have happened. As you said yourself, we can't verify that life started via abiogenesis. I am done here. I will say again that I respect you and your views. I have no animosity towards you, but I am not interested in this type of debate.
 
Last edited:
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. A personal experience of a supernatural nature can never be evidence as it is subjectively based on the individual's interpretation of their experience.
 
There are no evidence for a God, but there are no evidence for atheism either. Atheist are just as religious as Christians, because they deny the possibility of a supernatural figure, souls or reincarnation.
 
Camlon said:
There are no evidence for a God, but there are no evidence for atheism either. Atheist are just as religious as Christians, because they deny the possibility of a supernatural figure, souls or reincarnation.
Click to expand...

Just as religious for not having religious beliefs. You guys make a bundle of sense.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. A personal experience of a supernatural nature can never be evidence as it is subjectively based on the individual's interpretation of their experience.
Click to expand...

All reality is subjective, including all those scientific experiments.
 
SE102 said:
Just as religious for not having religious beliefs. You guys make a bundle of sense.
Click to expand...


He's saying that we believe something that cannot be scientifically proven, while you believe against something that cannot be scientifically disproven.

Neither position is based on scientific fact. One is based on faith and personal spiritual experiences. The other is based on an absence of evidence... which is not evidence of absence.
 
Goshin said:
He's saying that we believe something that cannot be scientifically proven, while you believe against something that cannot be scientifically disproven.
Click to expand...

People don't seem to get that theres nothing to disprove. Its not that a lack of God cant be disproven its that a lack of a belief does not exist.

Lack of the belief does not constitute a positive belief in something else. Not believing in god is not a positive belief to be disproven. It is merely not even subscribing to a thought system that includes a supernatural being.
 
Cephus said:
Great, then why don't you stop wasting your time on your knees praying to an imaginary friend in the sky and get on your feet and do something to help these people? People of all sorts give to charities, the largest charities in the world are non-religious in nature. Ever heard of things like the American Red Cross? Doctors Without Borders? Amnesty International? UNICEF? The reason people don't think about these organizations as non-theistic is because they don't bother making a big deal about it, they're too busy actually helping people to bother. It seems absurd that you feel you have to believe in something irrational in order to be able to reach out and help your fellow man.

Charities are actually realizing that pushing religion harms them when it comes to donations, that's why the Christian Children's Fund dropped "Christian" from their name and became ChildFund International. More people are apt to donate if they think the charity is actually helping people and not poisoning their minds with religious nonsense.
Click to expand...

religious nonsense is no more poisonous than arrogant elitism....
and most religion based charities help without preaching their gospel. The church I attend has a very large charity program, and since I donate 10% to the church, I am part of their charitable efforts.


Making mountains out of molehills, that is all you are doing. But, if it keeps you from being afraid of the unknown, go for it...
 
UtahBill said:
and most religion based charities help without preaching their gospel. The church I attend has a very large charity program, and since I donate 10% to the church, I am part of their charitable efforts.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, you make a claim and as your only proof of the claim, you use your own particular church. Sorry, doesn't fly. You are aware that groups like The Salvation Army won't feed you unless you listen to a sermon, they won't put you in a bed for the night unless you profess Christian belief, right? That's extremely commonplace. They're more interested in passing on their mind poison than they are in just helping people for the sake of helping people. The charitable work is just a vehicle for prosletyzing.
 
Cephus said:
Ah yes, you make a claim and as your only proof of the claim, you use your own particular church. Sorry, doesn't fly. You are aware that groups like The Salvation Army won't feed you unless you listen to a sermon, they won't put you in a bed for the night unless you profess Christian belief, right? That's extremely commonplace. They're more interested in passing on their mind poison than they are in just helping people for the sake of helping people. The charitable work is just a vehicle for prosletyzing.
Click to expand...

You must be living in an alternate universe, or in the verydistant past. Next you will be telling us that the YMCA won't allow people in unless they say a prayer at an alter first....
Remember Hurricane Katrina? There was tons of news coverage about the charitable help delivered, and altho I didn't see ALL of it, I did see a lot, and NONE of it mentioned the kind of things you are claiming. NONE...it would have been headline news. A few signs were up so the media would know which organizations were providing the help, and there might have been prayer services with voluntary attendance, but what you say if off the charts wrong.
I do remember Hurricanes back in the late 50's where the Red Cross got criticism for SELLING drinking water to storm victims. They took a lot of heat on that. And a few charities took some heat when the media published the exorbitant salaries of some of the organization heads.
And I wasn't using my church as some kind of standard, all the religions providing help gave their assistance without anything expected in return, just as it says to do in the bible.
 
UtahBill said:
You must be living in an alternate universe, or in the verydistant past. Next you will be telling us that the YMCA won't allow people in unless they say a prayer at an alter first....
Click to expand...

Then you haven't done your research. From an article, "I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you're Jewish, tough. If you're Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you're not worthy of assistance. It's quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they're most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls."

Funny how you accuse me of living in the very distant past, then bring up something from the 1950s.
 
Cephus said:
Then you haven't done your research. From an article, "I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you're Jewish, tough. If you're Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you're not worthy of assistance. It's quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they're most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls."

Funny how you accuse me of living in the very distant past, then bring up something from the 1950s.
Click to expand...

50 years ago is distant past? you are very young, then....
I read your link, someone says he or she saw something once, yada, yada, yada......
and their "paramilitary" uniforms? that indicates a huge bias right off the bat.
A few cases of child molestations? happens everywhere all the time, all religions, all organizations that are big enough will have a pervert or 2 in its membership, doesn't make the entire orgainization suspect...

Your claims are all hot air.....
Come up with some arrests and court cases showing continued coercion on the religion angle, and you might be able to regain SOME credibility....
 
Manc Skipper said:
What does this mantra mean to you? From your repetition, it seems that you ascribe some significance to it.
Click to expand...

I realized I didn't answer your question. This "mantra", as you call it, is verifiable fact. Quantum mechanics requires a subjective observer. This means, of course, that the universe is subjective. There are no objective truths.
 
reefedjib said:
I realized I didn't answer your question. This "mantra", as you call it, is verifiable fact. Quantum mechanics requires a subjective observer. This means, of course, that the universe is subjective. There are no objective truths.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to say this but from a neuroscience perspective. It's hard to get people to think in that mind frame because it's the next era of thinking and it's fairly new to our species.
 
Orion said:
I've been trying to say this but from a neuroscience perspective. It's hard to get people to think in that mind frame because it's the next era of thinking and it's fairly new to our species.
Click to expand...

The implications are profound. It means our consciousness, which is the observer of the subjective world, turns out to be rather central to the existence of the Universe.
 
Last edited:
@ jamesrage
Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god/s.
The definition of religion thus, does not apply to atheism.
 
Hatuey said:
If claiming that disbelief is in fact a belief then one could claim that no taste is in fact a taste of its own. So, does water have a taste?
Click to expand...

Water has taste. That why waters from different sources have distinct flavors.

Any affirmation of a concept, entity, or deed, for any reason, is a belief, so we all have beliefs. Some are more justified than others.

Atheism isn't a religion, it is a viewpoint. Strictly defined, 'atheism' doesn't entail anything except lack of affirmation of a Supreme Being/s. Secular Humanism resonates with some concepts of religion, but I don't consider it such.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
If claiming that disbelief is in fact a belief then one could claim that no taste is in fact a taste of its own. So, does water have a taste?
Click to expand...

It's a religion because atheists are so active in trying to humiliate religious people and quash religious worship. They feel their non-belief is critical to society.
 
American said:
It's a religion because atheists are so active in trying to humiliate religious people and quash religious worship. They feel their non-belief is critical to society.
Click to expand...
Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god/s; that’s it!

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

By definition atheism is not a religion.
 
American said:
It's a religion because atheists are so active in trying to humiliate religious people and quash religious worship. They feel their non-belief is critical to society.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to quash religious worship, they are simply trying to stop the religious from imposing their beliefs on those who have no desire for them. I've always found it funny that telling people they should respect others and keep their beliefs to themselves is seen as discriminatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom