The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[teapartysamurai]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Could you define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

The term is explicit, HARD evidence.

Not a theory, hard evidence.

Atheists produce LOTS of theories for how life began. What they can't do is produce hard evidence for which theory is true.

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is an honest man. He's admitting what science does't want to admit. We DON'T KNOW how life began.

We just don't.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

No sorry it was not.

I've had a lot of sputtering and blathering trying to cover up the obvious, but I have yet to see hard evidence.

Do YOU have hard evidence for how life began?

Let's see it?

Or are you saying you are an atheist because other people tell you to be?

YOU can't produce evidence on your own.

Then your beliefs are based on the faith that what others tell you is true.

Your inability to pay attention is of your own making.

Your inability to do anything but sputter insults in the face of an op you can't refute, show's who really isn't paying attention.

 

[PostmodernProph]

While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

 

[Hollie]

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

No sorry it was not.

I've had a lot of sputtering and blathering trying to cover up the obvious, but I have yet to see hard evidence.

Do YOU have hard evidence for how life began?

Let's see it?

Or are you saying you are an atheist because other people tell you to be?

YOU can't produce evidence on your own.

Then your beliefs are based on the faith that what others tell you is true.

Your inability to pay attention is of your own making.

Your inability to do anything but sputter insults in the face of an op you can't refute, show's who really isn't paying attention.

What insults? You're not paying attention and thus your posts are confused and disconnected.

 

[teapartysamurai]

While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

Exactly.

It's a theory. No one can prove, that is what actually happened.

 

[teapartysamurai]

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

No sorry it was not.

I've had a lot of sputtering and blathering trying to cover up the obvious, but I have yet to see hard evidence.

Do YOU have hard evidence for how life began?

Let's see it?

Or are you saying you are an atheist because other people tell you to be?

YOU can't produce evidence on your own.

Then your beliefs are based on the faith that what others tell you is true.

Your inability to pay attention is of your own making.

Your inability to do anything but sputter insults in the face of an op you can't refute, show's who really isn't paying attention.

What insults? You're not paying attention and thus your posts are confused and disconnected.

I'm paying attention enough to know all you are doing is sputtering.

 

[Hollie]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Could you define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

The term is explicit, HARD evidence.

Not a theory, hard evidence.

Atheists produce LOTS of theories for how life began. What they can't do is produce hard evidence for which theory is true.

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is an honest man. He's admitting what science does't want to admit. We DON'T KNOW how life began.

We just don't.

Your comments suggest a typical lack of a science vocabulary, common for the hyper-religious.

Abiogenesis FAQs The Origins of Life

 

[rightwinger]

If they did not exist at the same time, then either species evolve over time or species just pop into existence.

if "pop" infers the lack of cause then I disagree......how about, species randomly occur over a long period of gradual change, species randomly occur over a short term due to a rapid change, or species are caused to occur when they are intended to occur by an intelligent designer?.........

A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.

Identify a single instance of that happening.

Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.

???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....

He makes them out of clay too!

your brain is ample evidence that clay is still involved.....

If "the creator" didn't make us out of clay like the bible claims, were we created out of thin air?

 

[PratchettFan]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Could you define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

The term is explicit, HARD evidence.

Not a theory, hard evidence.

Atheists produce LOTS of theories for how life began. What they can't do is produce hard evidence for which theory is true.

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is an honest man. He's admitting what science does't want to admit. We DON'T KNOW how life began.

We just don't.

The term is not explicit at all. I use the terms objective and relevant. Objective meaning observable, testable and repeatable. Relevant meaning the evidence is clearly connected to the conclusion. Evidence itself is not proof, it is merely a fact. You have asked about evidence for how life began, but you use an adjective which has no meaning - or a meaning so pliant it could be used to accept or reject any fact presented.

So exactly what are you asking for when you ask for "hard evidence"?

 

[PratchettFan]

While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

 

[Dot Com]

Scientists are busting their asses daily in order to fill in the gaps of the evolutionary timeline. Meanwhile, lazy thumpers just read a passage or two out of a book with the earliest part written a generation after their Sky Pixie had passed. Who is lazy?

 

[rightwinger]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Could you define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

The term is explicit, HARD evidence.

Not a theory, hard evidence.

Atheists produce LOTS of theories for how life began. What they can't do is produce hard evidence for which theory is true.

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is an honest man. He's admitting what science does't want to admit. We DON'T KNOW how life began.

We just don't.

Is there hard evidence of how life began? Lots of theories but no evidence
Is there hard evidence that life began with simple creatures? Yes, there is overwhelming evidence and no evidence of complex creatures at the beginning of time

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well WHO has the superstition when you can't produce ONE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE for how life began?

You are the one who believes in superstitious voodoo and other nonsense.

Here is where science currently stands on the origin of life.

New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

(Phys.org) —One of the biggest questions in science is how life arose from the chemical soup that existed on early Earth. One theory is that RNA, a close relative of DNA, was the first genetic molecule to arise around 4 billion years ago, but in a primitive form that later evolved into the RNA and DNA molecules that we have in life today. New research shows one way this chain of events might have started.

Today, genetic information is stored in DNA. RNA is created from DNA to put that information into action. RNA can direct the creation of proteins and perform other essential functions of life that DNA can't do. RNA's versatility is one reason that scientists think this polymer came first, with DNA evolving later as a better way to store genetic information for the long haul. But like DNA, RNA also could be a product of evolution, scientists theorize.

Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA. The spontaneous formation of RNA building blocksis seen as a crucial step in the origin of life, but one that scientists have struggled with for decades.

"In our study, we demonstrate a reaction that we see as important for the formation of the earliest RNA-like molecules," said Nicholas Hud, professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Georgia Tech, where he's also the director of the Center for Chemical Evolution.

The study was published Dec. 14 online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA.

The researchers demonstrated this property of the TAP nucleosides by adding another molecule to their reaction mixture, called cyanuric acid, which is known to interact with TAP. Even in the unpurified reaction mixture, noncovalent polymers formed with thousands of paired nucleosides.

"It is amazing that these nucleosides and bases actually assemble on their own, as life today requires complex enzymes to bring together RNA building blocks and to spatially order them prior to polymerization,"said Brian Cafferty, a graduate student at Georgia Tech and co-author of the study

The study demonstrated one possible way that the building blocks for an ancestor of RNA could have come together on early Earth. TAP is an intriguing candidate for one of the first bases that eventually led to modern RNA molecules, but there are certainly others, Hud said.

Future work, in Hud's lab and by other laboratories in the Center for Chemical Evolution, will investigate the origins of RNA's phosphate backbone, as well as other pathways toward modern RNA.

"We're looking for a simple, robust chemistry that can explain the earliest origin of RNA or its ancestor," Hud said.

Read more at: New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

Needless to say you won't comprehend any of the above because you lack the cognitive ability.

However the mere fact that scientists have been been able to demonstrate how chemicals can "self assemble" into the building blocks of RNA brings our knowledge base one step closer to answering this question.

And yes, the above does constitute "hard evidence" even though lackwits like yourself fail to understand any of it.

More links to the same that you won't read or comprehend.

Evolution 101 From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

There is no "superstition" in this scientific pursuit of the origin of life. Instead it is a step by step approach where each new discovery is peer reviewed and replicated for adherence to the scientific method and then built upon to reach an ever better understanding of the process.

The final answer has not yet been determined by we know way more than we did just 20 years ago and are light years ahead of the primitive mythology on which your superstitions are based.

So run along and stop bothering the adults who make it possible for you to enjoy the civilization that we have today that would never have happened if people like you were obstructing all knowledge.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Atheists rely far too much on the idea they are smarter than those who believe in God, simply because they say they are smarter those those who believe in God.

It doesn't take much for anyone to be smarter than you and your fellow room temp IQ ilk.

 

[Ava]

Second one? Well this one doesn't need as much exposition to explain, Thank God.

See, again, atheists demand hard FACT to prove God exists.

BUT, I've never met an atheist yet that didn't believe that life exists on other planets.

Now regardless of whether you believe life exists on other planets, let's face some hard facts. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ON OTHER PLANETS. Certainly not intelligent life.

Oh we have some rocks from Mars that look like they may have had worms, and we have a Pyramid on Mars that turned out to be a bad taken picture. BUT, when you get right down to it, we don't have any evidence life exists on Mars.

So the same people that INSIST on hard evidence for God, chuck that all out the porthole when it comes to whether or not life exists elsewhere.

Atheists will become furious, and point out to "probabilities" that life exists elsewhere. But "probabilities" isn't hard evidence.

So, pointing out to them, that they have chucked their own demand for hard evidence to believe in life elsewhere, thus they are engaging in an act of FAITH is something that's like putting a cross up to a vampire. They can't stand to admit THAT.

It's fun to watch em go round and round in ever closing logic boxes, trying to get out of that one.

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

That is a proof. It is an axiom. Do you really want to play semantics here, Derideo? The scientific process doesn't prove facts or ligical or mathematical proofs.

To illustrate what I mean:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

More at the link:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Scientific Proof scientific evidence and the scientific method

So now you are saying that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is an axiom? No one has to prove that is true? Same thing for matter is neither created nor destroyed?

In which case the logic of the Omnipotence Paradox is an axiom too and that would therefore establish that no creator exists because these all fall under "general validity".

"So now you are saying that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is an axiom?"


That law of physics applies to the interaction of material objects only.

 

[PostmodernProph]

if "pop" infers the lack of cause then I disagree......how about, species randomly occur over a long period of gradual change, species randomly occur over a short term due to a rapid change, or species are caused to occur when they are intended to occur by an intelligent designer?.........

A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.

Identify a single instance of that happening.

Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.

???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....

He makes them out of clay too!

your brain is ample evidence that clay is still involved.....

If "the creator" didn't make us out of clay like the bible claims, were we created out of thin air?

he created us.....I don't care if he used clay, dirt, sand, water, air or unicorn muffins.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

 

[Ava]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

More along the line of- 'what does that have to do with my not believing in a god'?

Belief or non-belief, can lie only in the heart without needing any justification or rationalization. Many people just do not believe in an afterlife, as well.

 

[Hollie]

A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.

Identify a single instance of that happening.

Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.

???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....

He makes them out of clay too!

your brain is ample evidence that clay is still involved.....

If "the creator" didn't make us out of clay like the bible claims, were we created out of thin air?

he created us.....I don't care if he used clay, dirt, sand, water, air or unicorn muffins.....

Sorry, but there's no reason to accept that Zeus created anything.

 

[rightwinger]

A "designer" who by magic and supernatural methods *poofs* new life forms into existence.

Identify a single instance of that happening.

Oh, you can't? Didn't Think so.

???....humanity.....though I reject your characterization of divine acts as mere magic.....David Copperfield does magic.....God does humans.....

He makes them out of clay too!

your brain is ample evidence that clay is still involved.....

If "the creator" didn't make us out of clay like the bible claims, were we created out of thin air?

he created us.....I don't care if he used clay, dirt, sand, water, air or unicorn muffins.....

What do you mean "he"?
Does "he" have genitals?