Life could rise on its own with or without a god, one has nothing to do with the other.
I want to thank Omen for stating what it is I am driving at.
Yet you never stated it and in fact implied the opposite constantly. You formed a dichotomy of science ( evolution and abiogenesis ) in association with atheism vs theism. If you were driving at what I'm saying, then you shouldn't have done that. Either way, it is a logical conclusion that every single atheist here likely accepts anyway. So you're talking to no one.
There is a belief out there that living things originated from non-living matter.
No there is not, I've pointed this out to you in quite a lot of detail. Are you going to respond to that to acknowledge your error or explain yourself?
That's fine if you believe that.
No one believes it because your base premises are false, they do not actually apply to the situation you're attempting to criticize.. which you are entirely ignorant of.
I certainly don't mind. But I am making the point that it is not a scientific belief because science is observable and reproducible.
No one holds it as true and science isn't necessarily reduced to only what is observable and reproducible directly. Again, your posts are strewn with landmines of your own ignorance with regards to basic science, biology, and even physics. You are essentially making a non-point, to an audience that knows more about the subject then you do.
No one has ever observed or reproduced a living organism coming forth from non-living matter. If one believes this it is believed on faith.
False. You have a false premise with regards to what is considered 'life', you use it as a special pleading qualifier without bothering to explain what it is or is not. You are also seemingly unaware that all kinds of matter is self replicating, complex, and self organizing. "life" is just a subjective definition of a series of traits for animated matter.
I apologize if I have used up my good will.
You should apologize for lying.
You should apologize for ignoring everyone.
You should apologize for making blatant false assertions about science/history, that are in error.. while ignoring everyone that points out the error.
You should apologize for building a strawman.
"Good will" is something you clearly never began this discussion with.
I will leave the forum if I am causing trouble. That is not my intention.
Then you should take responsibility and be accountable for yourself. At this point you're simply demonstrating why we think theist are delusional and idiotic,
not because they believe in god, but because they come to a message forum where atheist are.. make dozens of false assumptions about atheism.. make dozens of errors with regards to basic science.. lie about history/science.. ignore each and every single individual.. and more importantly treat people like s**t for not believing in their fairy tale.
This is what delusion is, textbook definition. It also brings up the question of your intelligence.
Yep, you're everything we've come to expect from a fundamentalist.
I am not bothered that anyone believes differently than I do and it doesn't bother me if someone believes I am delusional.
Dishonest, ignorant, and arrogant. It is also not simply a question of 'different belief', the problem is that you demonstrate a willful attitude of dismissal of others based on a dichotomy of an imagined polemical argument. I actually don't care if you believe in a god or not, nor do I think you are delusional for doing so. However, I am concerned with the tendency for people who believe in a god .. to act delusional when they've become emotionally dependent on that belief. This usually occurs when the individual in question has based their emotionally hinged belief in that god on the idea that some kind of science has something to do with not believing in that god. They immediately associate that science with atheism, based on vague and largely unexplained details.. that in themselves would be so inclusive to really be anti-knowledge/anti-science/anti-education. The person has reduced the subject out of the intellectual realm and purely into the one of an intolerant, close minded, dictatorship.
But let's at least be honest, belief in God is no more delusional than belief in abiogenesis.
The two are not comparable, you have no demonstrated that you actually know what abiogenesis is. "Belief" has a definition, that is not applicable to scientific methodolgy. "Belief" is usually something believed without evidence and abiogenesis isn't 'believed'.
Neither are founded upon science.
You havn't described anything that would be science, abiogenesis, life, non-life, or atheism. You have instead ignored everyone and constantly repeated your lying mantra.
Both are theories that attempt to understand ourselves and our world.
False. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis. A religion is neither a scientific hypothesis or a theory. A scientific theory is what a scientific hypothesis becomes after it meets sufficient criteria with regards to the scientific method.
Feel free to tell me if I should leave. If that is the concensus I'm outta here.
I would rather that you take responsibility, stop acting in a dishonest manner, and actually bother to respond to people. You don't have to start this martyrdom bulls**t simple because we hold you accountable, stop being a 'christian' and actually be 'christ like' for once. You're doing nothing but further strengthening the non-belief of every person you talk too.
