Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Now you did it, here comes the troll youtube clip!

 

Too bad you have failed to keep up with MODERN SCIENCE!

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x

Science has come a very long way towards establishing how Abiogenesis works. It is only a matter of time before they figure it out.

As far as your creationist claptrap about the gaps in the fossil record goes those have been filled in by the Science of DNA. For example the study of embryos shows how reptilian scales have evolved into feathers for birds and hair for mammals.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/human-hair-bird-feathers-came-reptile-scales

 

That is not true.

If I recall correctly, all Pasteur proved with his experiment was that maggots didn't originate from meat. He ignored the bacteria slime that formed on rotting meat. The bacteria is alive and reproduces.

 

Well if your definition of god is that god is an idea and not a reality then you cannot be an athiest since god as an idea clearly exists.

 

That makes no sense.

 

It means:
1, 2, KO!
Game over!

 

Amusing tautology and it makes sense after enough drinks to addle the senses.

 

it makes perfect sense to sober people

 

Actually makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is you claiming to be an athiest when your definition of god is the idea of a god.

Would you care to try a definition again. Hopefully one that would allow you to claim being an athiest.

 

But not to intelligent people.

 

This is just absurd.

It's YOU who proposes that there is a god.

When someone says they don't believe there are any gods, how can it possibly make sense for YOU to ask THEM to conjure up a god???

 

Again, this is just plain idiotic.

An atheist believes there is a definition of the word "god" and that there is an "idea" of there being a "god".

Atheists are fully aware that there are theists.

 

Does that mean I am now rich because I just imagine a million dollars?

 

In the cwazy world of neoatheology things do and do not exist by 'definition', according to your own rules God exists 'by definition', and that has been proven.

or is that just another one of those cwazy quirks that apply to the rest of the world but not neoatheists?

 

No, the word god has a definition. That does NOT mean there exists a god.

"Unicorn" has a definition. "Fairy" has a definition. "Dragon" has a definition. "Grand unified theory" has a definition.

That doesn't mean that any of those things exists.

"Neoatheist" - LOL!!! Have fun with your definitions. Do NOT expect that your definitions result in something springing up in real life to match your imagination.

 

however in the strict sense they most certainly do exist 'by definition',

are you going to tell us next that mathematics does not exist by definition? Addition, substraction grand unified theory none of them exist by definition?

Yeh neoatheists, its the label 'atheists' and others crowned the 'lacker' styled atheologists with.

 

Is this your new definition of god?

 

Sorry for your confusion. I never proposed that their is an actual god. What I said is if your definition of god is the idea of god then you cannot be an atheist since the idea of god clearly exists.

Care to change your definition of " god".

And of course how can you claim to not believe in god if you cannot even define what you don't believe in?

 

Your assumptions are all wrong because I never provided you with any such definition.

I was merely amused by your periphrasis.

My own basis for being an atheist is that an "omnipotent creator" is a logical paradox.

 

You supported the definition. See post #1157. And why would you think " omnipotent creator" is a logical patadox? Now " omnipotent creator of everything " might qualify as a logical paradox since it would have had to create itself.

cre·a·tor
/krēˈādər/
noun

1. a person or thing that brings something into existence.
   "James Bond's creator Ian Fleming"
   synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
   
   • used as a name for God.
     noun: Creator; noun: the Creator
     synonyms: God, the Lord, the Almighty, the Master of the Universe;
     one's Maker
     "the Sabbath is kept to honor the Creator"

Feedback

 

Nope...but it does seem to yours, and as we have very clearly seen you get to define God AND Atheism for everyone. As you have been in my mind for so long, who am I to dispute that level of experience and knowledge....can I use the potty now lord?

 

I "supported" a definition by pointing out that it only made sense to those who are mentally addled by alcohol?

At this point I am wondering what YOUR definition of "support" means? But perhaps we need to verify your definition of "definition" first since that too might require alcohol induced addling.

 

Sorry - that made no sense to me at all. Maybe you need to be more specific and less dependent on people accepting something you think you communicated at some other time.

 

I will take this one in sections:
1.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? I am unsure but, likely through Abiogenesis.
2. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Self replicating DNA/RNA
3. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? A copy of itself.
4.Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) Nature and nurture.
5. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Time and complex interaction as well as accumulated mutation.
6.Natural selection works only with the genetic information available, and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true? Mutation and reproduction.
7.When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two-and three celled intermediates?)
b) Fish change to amphibians?
c) Amphibians change to reptiles?
d) Reptiles change to birds? (Their lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
8. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
9. Which of the following evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, of the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) THe lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) The plants, or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
e) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
f) The immune system or the need for it?

I do not know.

 

How do you explain these quotes?

"Paul Davies (Australian astrophysicist):
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.
Alan Sandage (the greatest living cosmologist and winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):
The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order is simply too well put together.
John O' Keefe (NASA astronomer):
We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.
Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize winner in physics):
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with very delicate balanced needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan.
George Greenstein (astronomer):
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

Evolutionist Martin Moe admitted that "a century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life." Therefore, it is unscientific and inaccurate for evolutionists to claim that spontaneous generation occured-that is, that nonliving chemicals produced living organisms sometime in the distant past.
Louis Pasteur and others have shown the impossibility of spontaneous generation and have proved the Law of Biogenesis: Life can arise only from pre-existing life and will perpetuate only its own kind.
Eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues noted:
There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.
Since the Law of Biogenesis dictates that life comes only from life, this should raise a question in our minds: Where did the first life in the universe come from? If life always comes from life, this should raise a question in our minds: Where did the first life in the universe come from? If life always comes from life, the only logical conclusion is that life has always existed. Remember, there cannot be an effect without a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Therefore, the only possibility is that we came from an eternal, living Creator.
Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick stated:
The great majority of sequences (required for life) can never be synthesized at all, at any time. An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.
In addition to life arising only from life, the Law of Biogenesis also states that life only perpetuates its own kind. Each creature's genes are uniquely programmed to reproduce only within that same species. This explains why whales produce only whales, cows produce cows, ants produce ants, and humans produce humans. "

Personal Opinion.