Support NeoGAF

[Uchip]

Sorry, but I made no claims on biblical literalism, and neither do a suprisingly large number of religious organizations. Did you know that literal interpretation is one of the components of the definition of fundamentalism? Judging from what I've seen from you, I doubt that, or that you actually care.

You know what? You clearly aren't interested in having a discussion like an adult, and for all your bluster about being rational, you debate very emotionally and with petty insults. I'd say it makes you stand out, but you really actually blend in rather marvelously with the public writ large. Bonne nuit!

the metaphoric use of the bible is no better and you know it
certain passages are downright evil, and people just ignore them because its "up to interpretation", which is a terrible structure for decision.

your adult discussion includes image macros and links to scrubs? really?

 

[Foffy]

Isn't the fact that having a faith is something that simply cannot be backed up? They believe in something that transcends our physical existence. How can you back up and justify something that cannot be physically observed?

I don't know what to believe myself, but I would like to hope there's something that transcends us beyond death. Whatever that could be, I've no clue.

 

[Pollux]

how the fuck should I know?
take your rhetoric somewhere else

So first you bitch at us because we have all the answers, which we don't. Then you bitch because our answers in no way can be harmonious with science. Evolution for example. Yet you don't know a fucking thing about what certain groups actually teach. You go from the wing nuts you hear about on your TV. Have you read the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution? No, I doubt it since according to you even understanding or reading the teaching of the Church is a waste of time.

When i ask you to answer the same questions that religions have tried to answer but from an atheists perspective you tell me to GTFO. You are ignorant. You are a hypocrite. You are a bigot.

Try to understand both sides before you start hurling out worthless drivel. You are one of the more condescending atheists on GAF, especially in this thread. If you can't have an intelligent conversation about the dogma you're criticizing then don't bother having the discussion at all. It's not me that should leave this thread, as I've been nothing but respectful towards atheist-GAF. You, however, have been arrogant and close-minded the entire time.

Do a little research on the teachings you're criticizing before you try to appear high-and-mighty and knowledgable.

 

[Uchip]

So first you bitch at us because we have all the answers, which we don't. Then you bitch because our answers in no way can be harmonious with science. Evolution for example. Yet you don't know a fucking thing about what certain groups actually teach. You go from the wing nuts you hear about on your TV. Have you read the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution? No, I doubt it since according to you even understanding or reading the teaching of the Church is a waste of time.

When i ask you to answer the same questions that religions have tried to answer but from an atheists perspective you tell me to GTFO. You are ignorant. You are a hypocrite. You are a bigot.

Try to understand both sides before you start hurling out worthless drivel. You are one of the more condescending atheists on GAF, especially in this thread. If you can't have an intelligent conversation about the dogma your criticizing then don't bother having the discussion at all. It's not me that should leave this thread, as I've been nothing but respectful towards atheist-GAF. You, however, have been arrogant and close-minded the entire time.

Do a little research on the teachings you're criticizing before you try to appear high-and-mighty and knowledgable.

yeah, at this point you're just not making any kind of sense
like i said, the onus is on YOU to prove what your religion claims

 

[THRILLH0]

yeah, at this point you're just not making any kind of sense
like i said, the onus is on YOU to prove what your religion claims

At the risk of uninformed ridicule from a vocal minority? :lol

Why are you so desperate for this proof?

 

[Thagomizer]

certain passages are downright evil, and people just ignore them because its "up to interpretation", which is a terrible structure for decision.

Agreed, but then, that's 1700-2500 year old writing for you.

your adult discussion includes image macros and links to scrubs? really?

the image macro was just a shorthand for pointing out you were strawmanning the idea that being religious means you support a theocracy, which is pretty hilarious, and a position from which you quickly backpedaled. No different than if I had pointed it out verbally or a link to Webster, only it had a picture. Don't act like I posted an "O RLY" owl, please.

And maybe you should have paid attention to what was said in the Scrubs video by Laverne, which I picked specifically because it was succinct and states fairly well the position of a fairly normal person, as opposed the admittedly stuffy (if engaging) Father Himes.

 

[Pollux]

At the risk of uninformed ridicule from a vocal minority? :lol

Why are you so desperate for this proof?

He's desperate because he falls in the category that the Pope talks about in the following passages no matter how vocally he's about to deny it...

Pope Benedict XVI has some good thoughts on this idea, of atheists being just as unsure as the believers...

Just as we have already recognized that the believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void, so now we can discern the entangled nature of human destinies and say that the nonbeliever does not lead a sealed-off, self-sufficient life, either. However vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty about whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole; he remains threatened by the question of whether belief is not after all the reality it claims to be. Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of unbelief, which can never finally eliminate for certain the possibility that belief may after all be the truth. It is not until belief is rejected that its unrejectability becomes evident.

An adherent of the Enlightenment [writes Buber], a very learned man, who had heard of the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid a visit to him in order to argue, as was his custom, with him, too, and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi’s room, he found him walking up and down with a book in his hand, rapt in thought. The Rabbi paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at him fleetingly, and said, “But perhaps it is true after all.” The scholar tried in vain to collect himself—his knees trembled, so terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance to hear. But Rabbi Levi Yitschak now turned to face him and spoke quite calmly: “My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have argued wasted their words on you; as you departed you laughed at them. They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you, and neither can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.” The exponent of the Enlightenment opposed him with all his strength; but this terrible “perhaps” that echoed back at him time after time broke his resistance.

He feels the nagging perhaps. It's the ones that shout the loudest that have the greatest doubt in their beliefs.

 

[Pollux]

Doubt being generally a positive and rational thing.

I never said it wasn't.

Everyone doubts, I know I do.

 

[Count Dookkake]

lol, something the pope said.

 

[Pollux]

lol, something the pope said.

Criticize the guy all you want, and I know this won't matter to any of you, but he's brilliant when it comes to theology.

 

[Uchip]

At the risk of uninformed ridicule from a vocal minority? :lol

Why are you so desperate for this proof?

im not interested in religious "proof" of any kind
im just pointing out that hes the one with the claims and nothing to back it up but "faith"
and that has never and will never change

but just to entertain his notion that I have no answers:

Origin of Life: Evolution, Big bang theory
Purpose: Propogation, exploration; subjective/none
World End: Asteroid impact, Star death, Solar Flare, Black Hole etc

Agreed, but then, that's 1700-2500 year old writing for you.

Which is still relevant. Actually, the only historical evidence (if that) of Jesus also claims that there were multiple messiahs trying to perform miracles, nor was there a moses. which directly contradicts everything in the christian faith.
Ive seen that episode of scrubs, and it made me roll my eyes.
"backpedaling" is your way of describing my reiteration so that it wouldn't be interpreted that way is a bad thing?

 

[Thagomizer]

Doubt being generally a positive and rational thing.

Incidentally, many of the priests that I've talked to at my school consider doubt- of themselves, of components of their faith, and yes, even of God- to be extremely important both in terms of personal growth and to their faith, and to not just blindly follow.


Nitpick: Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but the change of it.

Spoiler

I initially had "progress," but that implies an end goal about evolution that it doesn't possess

 

[Count Dookkake]

Criticize the guy all you want, and I know this won't matter to any of you, but he's brilliant when it comes to theology.

Some people are brilliant when it comes to Batman, too.

 

[Pollux]

im not interested in religious "proof" of any kind
im just pointing out that hes the one with the claims and nothing to back it up but "faith"

but just to entertain his notion that I have no answers:

Origin of Life: Evolution, Big bang theory
Purpose: Propogation, exploration; subjective
World End: Asteroid impact, Star death, Solar Flare, Black Hole etc

What started evolution, what caused the Big Bang theory (first thought of by a Catholic priest btw)

Agree on purpose

world end was more rhetorical but yea any of those are good too lol

Some people are brilliant when it comes to Batman, too.

Sheldon Cooper

 

[Erigu]

I'd be willing to bet that many of these people could destroy the majority of this thread on pure intellectual power. However, their arguments don't hold water with you because you don't accept them as valid

... when they really are valid, but simply not based on this "logic" thing we hold in such high esteem?
Really, now?

 

[Dude Abides]

Criticize the guy all you want, and I know this won't matter to any of you, but he's brilliant when it comes to theology.

No. Paul Tillich was brilliant at theology. Reinhold Niebhur was brilliant at theology. Friedrich Schleiermacher was brilliant at theology. Benedict is brilliant at bureaucratic maneuvering.

 

[Thagomizer]

... when they really are valid, but simply not based on this "logic" thing we hold in such high esteem?
Really, now?

This was referring to people saying that religious people are stupid because they are religious. I was not saying that this makes them more correct or gives their ideals more weight, just that saying that someone is stupid because of religious belief is nonsense.

I apologize for being unclear and poor wording on my part.

 

[THRILLH0]

im not interested in religious "proof" of any kind
im just pointing out that hes the one with the claims and nothing to back it up but "faith"
and thats has never and will never change

Yet you've spent twice as many posts as anyone else has made in this thread demanding it...

Everything OK with you bro?

 

[Pollux]

No. Paul Tillich was brilliant at theology. Reinhold Niebhur was brilliant at theology. Friedrich Schleiermacher was brilliant at theology. Benedict is brilliant at bureaucratic maneuvering.

Have you read any of his theological works? BTW taking con law...you were right I was wrong. I'm eating crow now with this post.

 

[Uchip]

What started evolution, what caused the Big Bang theory (first thought of by a Catholic priest btw)

Agree on purpose

world end was more rhetorical but yea any of those are good too lol




Sheldon Cooper

@Evolution:favourable conditions and chance
@Big Bang:there is no real answer yet
Its your turn to answer these questions from a christian POV

This was referring to people saying that religious people are stupid because they are religious. I was not saying that this makes them more correct or gives their ideals more weight, just that saying that someone is stupid because of religious belief is nonsense.

It was never stated that religious people are stupid, but they are more likely to be.

Yet you've spent twice as many posts as anyone else has made in this thread demanding it...

Everything OK with you bro?

dont you think you're being hypocritical with your antagonistic posts?

Nitpick: Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but the change of it.

the building blocks for RNA can be synthesized in a laboritory, and assemble themselves naturally
This is still part of evolution

 

[Erigu]

This was referring to people saying that religious people are stupid because they are religious. I was not saying that this makes them more correct or gives their ideals more weight, just that saying that someone is stupid because of religious belief is nonsense.

I apologize for being unclear and poor wording on my part.

Well, I can certainly agree that being religious doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, sure.

But I really don't understand what you were getting at, there:
"I'd be willing to bet that many of these people could destroy the majority of this thread on pure intellectual power."
What does that mean? They could but they don't, because...?
"However, their arguments don't hold water with you because you don't accept them as valid"
You seemed to be implying we simply think they aren't. Are they valid or not?
This appeared to tie in with what you said earlier, about their approach being a different one:
"you are trying to apply how you think and approach the world-and problems in general- with people who fundamentally think differently than you. You-and a large component of this thread- think that because these people don't follow your thought process- i.e. logical and scientific method-based- they are less intelligent."
A different kind of approach, that would not be based on logic? Is that supposed to produce valid arguments? That "could destroy the majority of this thread on pure intellectual power"? Really?

Sorry, but it doesn't look like you were simply arguing "hey, just because you're religious, that doesn't mean you're stupid!", there...

 

[Pollux]

@Evolution:favourable conditions and chance
@Big Bang:there is no real answer yet
Its your turn to answer these questions from a christian POV



It was never stated that religious people are stupid, but they are more likely to be.

See, this is being civil...can we keep it like this without the condescending crap? please.

Evolution:
Humani Generis Paragraph #36 -- Keep in mind that this is from 1950 so many of the scientific claims are wrong. But the modern Church still keeps to the view that evolution happened.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith

The thing is, while evolution happened, God gave humans a soul. You may deny the existence of the soul, but that's the teaching.

From John Paul II
Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Big Bang Theory:

Catholic Church officially endorses the BBT:

…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.

 

[Dude Abides]

Have you read any of his theological works? BTW taking con law...you were right I was wrong. I'm eating crow now with this post.

Yes (though I'm as lapsed as it gets may dad loves the stuff so I've read it on a couple occasions when I visit). I'm not a fan of his hatred of Vatican II or his anti-rationalism/empiricism generally. He's certainly a competent theologian but brilliant is a bridge too far.

Enjoy Con Law. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. I'd much rather do it on the internet than in open court (I've had personal experience with both!)

 

[Pollux]

Yes (though I'm as lapsed as it gets may dad loves the stuff so I've read it on a couple occasions when I visit). I'm not a fan of his hatred of Vatican II or his anti-rationalism/empiricism generally. He's certainly a competent theologian but brilliant is a bridge too far.

Enjoy Con Law. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. I'd much rather do it on the internet than in open court (I've had personal experience with both!)

Brilliant theologically speaking. I'm reading his "Introduction to Christianity" now, and it's fascinating.

 

[Uchip]

how conniving of the pope to try to tie the biblical passage to the big bang
'let there be light' is not even remotely what the big bang consisted of
you cant just change a religious doctrine to suit modern skepticism
then its not the word of god, but the word of man.

The general Dating for Genesis is some 4000BC
Not really in line with the Big Bangs 12 billion

Same goes for the other points

You missed what is believed to be the purpose of life, and the end of life.
but I already know the basic beliefs regarding those so you dont really need to go into detail

 

[Mario]

The thing is, while evolution happened, God gave humans a soul. You may deny the existence of the soul, but that's the teaching.

I'm curious about different takes on this.

What was the trigger point at which a soul was granted to humans? Was it granted to the whole population of humans alive at the time, or just a paired "Adam and Eve"?

 

[Pollux]

I'm curious about different takes on this.

What was the trigger point at which a soul was granted to humans? Was it granted to the whole population of humans alive at the time, or just a paired "Adam and Eve"?

I don't know, I don't know enough about Catholic Dogma to answer that question. And to answer UChip, the Bible was never the literal word of God, it was just inspired by Him. I know this won't change your argument, but I'm just stating what I was taught.

 

[Mario]

I don't know, I don't know enough about Catholic Dogma to answer that question.

I don't believe there is an official statement with respect to these issues. The Catholic Church may have "accepted" evolution, but has been quiet with respect to how that actually aligns with God and the soul.

As there is no official stance, it is a question I like to explore though one that is unfortunately rarely answered, even with speculation.

 

[Uchip]

the Bible was never the literal word of God, it was just inspired by Him.

Why would the almighty creator of everything speak in riddles? Is he Gollum?
How can people trust Jesus that he talked to god when there were other people claiming to be the messiah?
The Chinese were more advanced at the time, why not pick one of them?
why would god speak to this man out in the middle of nowhere?

How can people trust ancient documents when the only recent official discussion with god resulting in a change up of the commandments

 

[Satyamdas]

Life & evolution are self-perpetuating processes by definition. Once gotten going, they'll continue until some outside (or inside - lol nuclear apocalypse) force stops them. What most likely started this? A happy accident, I suppose.

edit - or you know aliens

Interesting that so many of the people who bleat on and on about believing nothing sans "empirical evidence" or that which can be "proven", are somehow very ready to accept something fantastical like abiogenesis in spite of the fact that we have never seen one instance of life arising from non-living matter. Not one. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The only experience we have is that living beings come from other living beings.

Scientists have been sloshing chemicals around in laboratories for decades and can't seem to reproduce that accidental spark. They even use the known building blocks of life and still can't create it from inert matter. (Which is funny because even if they did succeed would they recognize the irony that their laboratory created life was the result of an intelligent agent?)

I'm not saying that you are one of these hypocritical people or that the abiogenesis myth proves anything, I just find it funny that so many who claim to only believe what can be empirically proven will quickly latch on to things simply because the alternative threatens their a priori beliefs.

 

[Uchip]

Interesting that so many of the people who bleat on and on about believing nothing sans "empirical evidence" or that which can be "proven", are somehow very ready to accept something fantastical like abiogenesis in spite of the fact that we have never seen one instance of life arising from non-living matter. Not one. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The only experience we have is that living beings come from other living beings.

what? the building blocks can be created in a lab like i mentioned
just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible
the steps in that direction are happening, science is not a static understanding.

 

[Satyamdas]

what? the building blocks can be created in a lab like i mentioned
just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible
the steps in that direction are happening, science is not a static understanding.

I know the building blocks can be created. But life from inert matter cannot be created even when using the known building blocks. This has been a holy grail for science since the fucking 40s. I admire your faith that it will happen someday, though!

 

[Satyamdas]

Of course not; you're just making a whole post filled with assumptions about what I might believe based on a single, rather tenuously stated line in my post. Bravo.

Actually no, I was not assuming that you believe any of that. I was using your post to discuss something I find amusing in these discussions. Your post didn't indicate a rock solid belief of any kind, and in fact I was specifically talking about those who drone on about how they only believe in things that are supported by empirical evidence and then magically discard that criteria when it suits their fancy (which I have not seen you do).

I guess I should have made it clear in the beginning of my post that I was not attacking you specifically, just using your post as a springboard. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Hmm. I don't see what the 40s would have to do with anything. Seven decades is not a very long time.

70 years is quite a long time when it comes to technology and science. We found out how to create the amino acids which are precursors to life in the 50s and since then nothing at all. I think that is telling, but I implore others to keep their faith strong.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Science is ever changing, that's the beauty of it, it isn't some static end-all-be-all explanation of where we come from, in fact, the science is already there we just have figured it out yet. The reason is simple, also. We, as a species, are stupid. The most brilliant man alive today is still an idiot compared to what is out there and knows almost nothing, but, the beauty of science is that we are trying to become smarter instead of accepting an old ass book as the way of the world and the cosmos.

 

[Dude Abides]

I know the building blocks can be created. But life from inert matter cannot be created even when using the known building blocks. This has been a holy grail for science since the fucking 40s. I admire your faith that it will happen someday, though!

that's cuz they have been using chemistry books. they should have been using the bhagavad gita.

 

[rdrr gnr]

edit: although for some reason the idea of aliens being responsible really does tickle me

I've argued it is objectively more viable than a omnipotent creator. Not in any serious academic sense, just to infuriate religious classmates in passing.

Interesting that so many of the people who bleat on and on about believing nothing sans "empirical evidence" or that which can be "proven", are somehow very ready to accept something fantastical like abiogenesis in spite of the fact that we have never seen one instance of life arising from non-living matter. Not one. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The only experience we have is that living beings come from other living beings.

Scientists have been sloshing chemicals around in laboratories for decades and can't seem to reproduce that accidental spark. They even use the known building blocks of life and still can't create it from inert matter. (Which is funny because even if they did succeed would they recognize the irony that their laboratory created life was the result of an intelligent agent?)

I'm not saying that you are one of these hypocritical people or that the abiogenesis myth proves anything, I just find it funny that so many who claim to only believe what can be empirically proven will quickly latch on to things simply because the alternative threatens their a priori beliefs.

In my experience, when people reference abiogenesis, they are evoking a naturalistic and materialistic disposition to the question. I don't know of any thinking person who has asserted abiogenetic findings or lack thereof as an absolute answer to the origin of life. Saying, we 'don't know' while appreciating science's uncanny propensity to explain seemingly metaphysical or deeply mysterious questions about the natural order is not some faith-based proposition -- it is the most honest and grounded 'answer' we have.

 

[Satyamdas]

that's cuz they have been using chemistry books. they should have been using the bhagavad gita.

Agreed.

 

[Uchip]

70 years is quite a long time when it comes to technology and science. We found out how to create the amino acids which are precursors to life in the 50s and since then nothing at all.

2010
first link that turned up was for 2010
that is a huge amount of progress in one year

 

[rdrr gnr]

The temptation to use the "I don't know, therefore aliens" macro is strong.

But I do feel that the concept is a little bit more plausible than an omnipotent creator.

This is definitely a debate I don't want to get into. But, yeah, I agree. More plausible and more interesting.

 

[Satyamdas]

2010
first link that turned up was for 2010
that is a huge amount of progress in one year

Yes, and there was the requisite thread here about how it proved abiogensis and proved god doesn't exist. Many lulz were had at the ignorance on display.

Artificial Intelligence can be called synthetic life, and it can also replicate itself. This has absolutely nothing to do with being able to create life from inert matter. No progress has been made on that front since Urey-Miller in 1953, I'm sorry.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

I just updated the OP with the following 2 questions:

Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

Also, why do many non-fundamentalist Christians think that because they reject some Bible stories, but believe in the Jesus one, that their beliefs are more reasonable than those of fundamentalists?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Yes, and there was the requisite thread here about how it proved abiogensis and proved god doesn't exist. Many lulz were had at the ignorance on display.

Artificial Intelligence can be called synthetic life, and it can also replicate itself. This has absolutely nothing to do with being able to create life from inert matter. No progress has been made on that front since Urey-Miller in 1953, I'm sorry.

I give it 20 years tops until we can create life from molecular building blocks.

 

[Korey]

 

[Freezie KO]

For the record, saying we've learned nothing new since the '50's regarding the origin of life vis-a-vis possible abiogenesis is bullshit.

Also, we didn't even have personal computers in the fifties. Just putting things into perspective. Sorry the thrust of scientific progress can't outpace your irrational belief system.

 

[Uchip]

Yes, and there was the requisite thread here about how it proved abiogensis and proved god doesn't exist. Many lulz were had at the ignorance on display.

Artificial Intelligence can be called synthetic life, and it can also replicate itself. This has absolutely nothing to do with being able to create life from inert matter. No progress has been made on that front since Urey-Miller in 1953, I'm sorry.

I dont think anyone in the field believes it to be a scientific dead end

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Interesting that so many of the people who bleat on and on about believing nothing sans "empirical evidence" or that which can be "proven", are somehow very ready to accept something fantastical like abiogenesis in spite of the fact that we have never seen one instance of life arising from non-living matter. Not one. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The only experience we have is that living beings come from other living beings.

There are billions of non-magical ways that life could have started on Earth. Even if scientists find that life has formed in one of their abiogenesis experiments, it doesn't mean that that's how life started on Earth. We'll probably never know how it did.

And there are many things which we (as a species) have observed in scientific experiments, and many we haven't (including abiogenesis), but because everything ever observed is non-magical, it's safe to assume the origin of life was too.

In a nutshell, observing abiogenesis will neither disprove God nor inform us as to how life started on our planet.

 

[Zeliard]

So tell me oh wise one,

What is the origin of life?
What is the purpose of life?
How will the world end?

I mean if we already know this then that should be easy for you to answer with 100% certainty.

"What is the origin of life? Oh, you can't explain it? Well what do you expect; God did it." What's the problem with simply not knowing something?

There are still big mysteries, but science is actually working on them. Even if it never finds the big answers, it's at least delving in and trying to gain understanding. Religion thinks it already found the answers, so there's less of a point there to approach these sorts of questions even philosophically unless you're a theologian or philosopher. And when science does have something to say about these matters, it tend to be brushed off or viewed with extreme suspicion, or simply incorporated into the definition of God in a way that ensures the debate will never end.

Also, "purpose" in life isn't necessary as an inherent attribute; we give ourselves purpose. Much like how we tend to see the appearance of design in everything, we also tend to see purpose even when it isn't there. Evolution effectively shows how something complex can arise out of natural, undirected processes, resulting in something that appears to have had a guiding purpose but doesn't. The reason evolution is viewed by some as damaging to religion is because it posits complex creations that have no conscious creator or purposeful design whatsoever, and makes that idea scientifically robust.

 

[astroturfing]

because some people trust their mammalian brains way too much. that's basically it.

one needs to realize our brains work against us in many ways; false memories, false beliefs, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, hallucinations etc. all this adds up and each and everyone of us has a distorted view of reality (levels of distortion of course varies). not to mention how we don't even really have a free will and ALL of our thoughts (including beliefs) just bubble up from our subconscious mind (most brain functions being subconscious).

if you think and "feel" in your brain that you know which religion is correct, basically claiming to know the meaning of life... then i'm sorry but you need to check yourself.

 

[Satyamdas]

I give it 20 years tops until we can create life from molecular building blocks.

Keep the faith, bro!

For the record, saying we've learned nothing new since the '50's regarding the origin of life vis-a-vis possible abiogenesis is bullshit.

Also, we didn't even have personal computers in the fifties. Just putting things into perspective. Sorry the thrust of scientific progress can't outpace your irrational belief system.

Awww, someone doesn't like it when his particular myth is scrutinized and dismissed. Cry summoar.

I dont think anyone in the field believes it to be a scientific dead end

Of course they don't, nor should they. All I'm doing is laughing at those who swear to only accept empirical evidence and then toss that out the window when a shiny theory comes along which suits their prior beliefs.

There are billions of non-magical ways that life could have started on Earth. Even if scientists find that life has formed in one of their abiogenesis experiments, it doesn't mean that that's how life started on Earth. We'll probably never know how it did.

Can you name three?

And there are many things which we (as a species) have observed in scientific experiments, and many we haven't (including abiogenesis), but because everything ever observed is non-magical, it's safe to assume the origin of life was too.

In a nutshell, observing abiogenesis will neither disprove God nor inform us as to how life started on our planet.

I never argued that it will. Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that so many "rational" people are oblivious to in their own worldview.

 

[Uchip]

I just updated the OP with the following 2 questions:

Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

Also, why do many non-fundamentalist Christians think that because they reject some Bible stories, but believe in the Jesus one, that their beliefs are more reasonable than those of fundamentalists?

for all intents and purposes Jesus was a con artist
the most notorious con artist of all time