Why atheists seem to win the argument with theists.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"I am NOT claiming that life only occurred once."
You've claimed this several times, and tacking "as far as we know" is simply a disingenuous use of semantics. Try this, life might have occurred innumerable times throughout the universe "as far as we know".
You're indulging in disingenuous semantics Jo.
"I am asking questions, presenting evidence and trying to draw rational conclusion from the evidence."
No you're not, you;re trying to imply a conclusion from having no contrary evidence, and this is called an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
"Is there any evidence that life has occurred anywhere in our universe in almost 14 billion years, except here?"
No. This does not mean we can imply it has not occurred, to do so is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"Does all life on this planet have a common ancestor?"
There is evidence to support this, yes.
Thank you for answering half of my question. That life on this planet has a common ancestor.
I am not quoting anyone, but atheists say something like, no evidence for God has been presented that is valid. That is considered rational and accurate.
But when I use the same reasoning and say something like, no evidence of life anywhere at anytime in the universe, except here has presented that is valid. That is an irrational and illogical statement.
How are they different.
We know as an objective fact that the existence of life is possible. No objective evidence can be demonstrated to show the existence of a deity is possible.
Let's try to simplify this by looking at it differently. Your wallet is missing. You don't know if it's misplaced or stolen, but you're pretty sure it's either in your house or stolen. Your house is a modest one, say 2000 square feet. And you've only searched your 100 square feet bathroom so far. Should you conclude it's stolen? Or maybe reserve judgement till you either find it or have searched your entire house? In a case like this, you wouldn't say, "So far, it's stolen," would you? You might be a little panicky, you might be thinking, "It may be stolen for all I know," but you wouldn't reasonably conclude it's stolen until you'd looked through your whole house, right?
That's the crux of the distinction right there. We have objective reason to believe we can't say this planet is the only planet where there is life. We know how little of the universe has been "searched." Things are very different when we talk about God. The religious say He's real, and he's at work on this planet right here, right now. But we've looked everywhere and found no objective proof.
(Edited for grammar)
@Nyarlathotep: You have to forgive Jo. Just like every other theist out there, oh wait, I can't say that. Just like all the theists I have ever met or seen on this site (That's Better) asserting things about which they can not possibly know.
Yeah, Breezy made the same mistake, and doubled and tripled down on it when it was pointed out.
Everyone makes mistakes with probability, the lunatics are the ones who continue to make the same mistake after it has been pointed out. I wonder what Jo will do...
@Nyarlathotep: The very definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting something different to happen.
Are we insane for answering the same questions over and over again?
"Are we insane for answering the same questions over and over again?"
Only if you expect a different outcome.
Jo can't seem to grasp that it is an objective fact that it's possible for life to exist in the uinverse, but we have no such objective evidence that any deity is possible.
He's also struggling to understand that not believing something is not a contrary assertion. Whereas his "life has occurred only once in 14 billion years as far as we know" heavily implies a claim, when a more accurate assertion is as Nyarl said, we know life has occured at least once in this universe.
I think we can all saw where he was going with these clumsy semantics.
He did start a thread after all, that claimed a belief could better be argued as valid if no argument were presented until someone asserted they didn't believe it. Genius....
When I granted his boon and offered to go first stating. I dont believe any deity exists, as no objective evidence has ever been demonstrated for any deity." He immediately lied and claimed I'd said "I believed no deity existed," you can't hope for much against that sort of dishonesty.
He's repeated his question three times at least, asking if science can test the efficacy of intercessory prayer, and lied that I won't answer each time even though I've answered in the affirmative each time.
I don't know how much of this nonsense is due to a lack of comprehension on his part, and how much is mendacity, but either way it's getting pretty tedious.
@doG: Well......... Do you really expect different results?
Beat me to it Cog, great minds etc..
Not really, but I am hopeful...as I have faith...
@doG: Then my fellow primate...... I am sorry to say....... You are bat-shit crazy.
"Faith" is what we use when we have no evidence at all for a claim. There is nothing we can not believe based on faith. (I see no problem with hope, we can all hope. And statistically, we are winning, our voices are being heard.) But faith? Faith is the road to delusion. We must eat our bananas one at a time even if we think we are hungry enough to eat them all.
I love chatting with you on here...you are awesome.
You saw what I did...(admiration)
I'll keep going...
Well, uncle cog, what if the faith is reason based? I see humans (the dirty animals) making scientific advancement in technology, medicine and many knowledge based disciplines, is that not a reasonable reason to have faith in them? They are flooding the planet with bananas too...I mean, they invented the "banana plantation".
1. "What if the faith is reason based?" Not sure what you mean by reason. We give all sorts of reasons for shit, some are good and some are bad. I will assume you mean "rationally based." If you have rationality, you don't need faith. Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided. Faith just pushes beyond what is reasonably justified.
2. "advancement in technology, is that not a reasonable reason to have faith in them?" Absolutely not!!! Never be the first one to own a bit of new technology. In six months it is going to be outdated and a newer version will be produced at half the price. Imagine buying an electric car 10 years ago vs. today. Imagine the electric car 20 years from now. Trust the advancements.... no thanks, I am gonna wait for the evidence.
Same argument goes for new drugs. Hell, you trust them, why not donate your body to a drug study? There are a few horror stories on YouTube of people who trusted the scientists and advancements.
In the long run, you do get to choose your level of acceptable evidence for whatever you choose to believe. The best practice seems to be to remain skeptical and careful of any claims made by any scientific advancements. Here are some failures I am aware of.
You know Viagra was a failed hair growth treatment. Imagine being in that study group. Ha ah ha ha ha ..... Failed Drugs....
3. And the nice yellow banana has been around quite a while. Since I was young, and people have not been dying on the streets after eating them. All fruits and veggies have been modified in some way throughout the years. When something begins causing us problems, I hope we hear about it before people start dropping dead. Enjoy your bananas.
BAM...you got me. How many times has this been played out on these boards...lol
The theistic chimp would say...well then, isn't your eating the banana an exercise in faith?
@doG: "The theistic chimp would say...well then, isn't your eating the banana an exercise in faith?"
Ahhh YES! To be expected. Theeee ollllleee, Equivocation fallacy. In the case of eating the banana the theist is using the world faith to mean trust or reliability. We already have words like "Trust" and "reliability." Certainly I feel as if I can trust the banana not to poison me unless of course it is being offered to me by Tin man. He has gone bat-shit crazy. You know that turd gave me a shot of Thorazine in my own bathroom after Old Man fucked it up. In this use of "faith" we are talking about a degree of confidence based on actual evidence. NOTHING LIKE "FAITH" IN GOD OR RELIGION.
Anyway, when the Christian refers to God or Jesus, he is using Faith as it is described in the bible. Hebrews 11 - "11 Now faith is CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE HOPE FOR and ASSURANCE ABOUT WHAT WE DO NOT SEE. (Certainly I have seen bananas, watched others eat them, and even eaten them myself. No faith required.) 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (YOU CAN BELIEVE A WHOLE LOT OF SHIT BASED ON FAITH.) And bananas grow on banana trees. Life is so simple when you don't complicate it with bullshit.
Faith in the Biblical is "Without evidence." The whole section is an interesting read. You will drop 3 IQ points by the end. I promise.
"What if the faith is reason based?"
Then it is no longer faith but a conclusion based on reason.
It's time here to explain the scientific position with respect to the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, and hopefully, clear out all the fallacies and canards once and for all.
First of all, because scientists only have one current model to work with, namely that of life observable on Earth, this is the only starting point that they have to use as a springboard. Which is openly and honestly accepted in the literature. Second, since that life observable on Earth is based upon a particular chemistry, a fact arising from a massive body of observational data, it makes sense to search for possible instances of that same chemistry occurring elsewhere. Starting with a search to see if appropriate molecules occur elsewhere.
Well, the data on that latter question is now in, and the answer is that the requisite molecules are pretty much ubiquitous throughout the universe. For example, the amino acid glycine has been detected in interstellar gas clouds, and laboratory experiments have determined a plausible synthesis route for glycine in those clouds from simpler precursors. There exists a large body of other similar data for a range of other molecules of interest. As a corollary, the idea that life resembling that on Earth, from the standpoint of the underlying chemistry, may be possible elsewhere in the universe, is supported by that data. But of course, just because life of the requisite sort is possible elsewhere, doesn't mean it's actually present, until we have the relevant observational data to hand.
Which is why Enceladus and Europa are being examined as potential venues for an extra-terrestrial life search.
The reasons for this choice are twofold. One, both bodies have provided observational data to the effect that they possess subsurface oceans comprised of liquid water, and a large part of the organic chemistry observed to underpin life on Earth, is chemistry that takes place in an aqueous medium. Two, data has been obtained in the case of Enceladus, that outflows from its subsurface ocean contain organic molecules of interest. Which is one of the reasons the Cassini probe was deliberately crashed into Saturn, in order to avoid contaminating Enceladus and potentially ruining a future life-search mission.
Now, there is a lot of work to be done, before the current data is augmented with any data pointing to actual life in those subsurface oceans. Numerous formidable technical hurdles have to be overcome, in order to design and implement a space mission that will provide substantive answers to the relevant questions, and even once those hurdles are overcome, those missions could still draw a blank, with respect to the existence of even the simplest indigenous microbial life. But that's why those missions are being proposed - to answer the question.
However, there are other interesting possibilities to consider. One being the presence of a functional prebiotic RNA world on one of those bodies, which, if discovered, would actually be more interesting in some quarters, than the presence of microbial life. Because a functioning prebiotic RNA world found on, say, Enceladus, would provide a massive boost to abiogenesis research covering the origin of life on Earth. I would actually consider a discovery of this nature to be more desirable for several reasons, than the discovery of indigenous microbial life. Of course, the 'jackpot' as far as I'm concerned, would be for one of those bodies to have an RNA world, and the other to have indigenous microbial life. That would, for me, be a reason to pop the champagne corks big time. But I'm also aware that this desire of mine stands a good chance of being utterly blown to pieces by whatever data that arrives from any future missions, and, although I'd be extremely pleased to have that 'jackpot' delivered to me by the data, I won't be unduly worried if it isn't. There are a range of other possibilities that could, if anything, make the hunt for extra-terrestrial life an even more interesting pursuit, because it alerts us to possibilities we didn't think of before the advent of those missions.That's part of the reason science is ultimately a huge amount of fun - finding something completely new and unexpected once one starts turning over the rocks.
Europa and Enceladus may not seem like obvious venues for an extra-terrestrial life search to the naive observer, but the data from space probes tells us that, despite said superficial appearances, they are actually the two best - and indeed only - opportunities on offer that are within our current investigative reach. As a consequence, they're worth examining on that basis, even if doing so is technically difficult and expensive. At the moment, we're still in the realm of "we don't know, but the preliminary data says it's worth looking", which has been the driving force behind every scientific advancement to date.
@Calilasseia: I have faith in great underwater oceans under massive ice flows supporting life.
doG and Cognistic
There seems to be some confusion about 'Faith" and "HOPE". I am reading some misleading definitions about it in these threads.
(Cognistic) - "Faith" is what we use when we have no evidence at all for a claim......... (I see no problem with hope, we can all
hope................. But faith? Faith is the road to delusion."
Faith does not necessarily have anything to do with delusion. The only instance in which it can be construed as delusional is if you bring in the deity factor.
Hope on the other hand can be delusional because the expectation has yet to be met.
Do you have faith in your wife or do you only have hopes in her?
Do you have faith in your team or do you hope they will win?
Do you assign the work to someone you have faith in or someone you hope can do it?
Nothing wrong with faith.
Faith is normally used in the present tense and Hope is normally used for something that is yet to occur.
IMO seems like your definitions are faulty Cognistic. Dog has every right to have Faith in certain things or people without being deluded.
Example: I have FAITH that my hammer will hammer in the next 1000 nails on this job. (I have total trust in it now as it is)
Example: I HOPE my hammer will do the job. ( I am having doubts...waiting for the result)
FAITH: 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
HOPE: • 1A feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen.
1. 1.1count noun A person or thing that may help or save someone.
2. 1.2 Grounds for believing that something good may happen.
I have left out the 2nd definition of faith as pertaining to a deity because it is not needed to make my point.
@In Spirit: Faith is explained, you are blowing hot air. Multiple definitions and the theists are using the definition in Hebrews 11. READ THE POST PRIOR TO COMMENTING.
"Do you have faith in your wife or do you only have hopes in her?
Do you have faith in your team or do you hope they will win?
Do you assign the work to someone you have faith in or someone you hope can do it?
Nothing wrong with faith."
These are classic examples of false dilemma. In each example, there are other options. For example, I could have a reasonable expectation my team would win based on prior experience and the players involved.
There is a lot wrong with faith, it can lead a person to expect or believe insane crap. Franz Reichelt had faith his parachute would work, despite a lack of field trials. He plummeted to his death in front of a large crowd of spectators.
"Example: I have FAITH that my hammer will hammer in the next 1000 nails on this job. (I have total trust in it now as it is)
Example: I HOPE my hammer will do the job. ( I am having doubts...waiting for the result)"
No, you have a reasonable expectation based on previous results.
I am repeating Cognostic's statement earlier. We have to forgive you.
Why? Because we already know that Religious Absolutists are incapable of understanding any scientific. If it does not comply with their unholy texts, it is lies.
InSpirit: MORE IDIOTIC BULLSHIT!!!
Do you have faith in your wife or do you only have hopes in her? "I hope she loves me." I am not a blind fucking idiot who assumes through faith that she loves me. I have evidence that she loves me by the evidence.
Do you have faith in your team or do you hope they will win? NO! Hebrews 11. Do you know how retarded your comments are., If you are going to redefine faith as "confidence" we already have the word "confidence" and do not need "FAITH"
Do you assign the work to someone you have faith in or someone you hope can do it? No! WTF don't you understand. I assign work to people based on their past performance and my understanding of their ability to do the assignment.
NOT ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES INVOLVES FAITH AS USED BY A THEIST. (HEBREWS II - 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.)
LEARN TO READ!!!
"NOT ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES INVOLVES FAITH AS USED BY A THEIST"
That's exactly my point.
I didn't make up the meanings for the word nor the dictionaries that describe the meanings and uses for that word.
Faith is not a term hijacked by theism. It can be used for other topics. Faith exists outside of theism.
You say that there are other words to replace the word faith when not related to theism. Yes, of course, but that doesn't delete the word 'faith' nor it's usage for it outside of theism.
Then all you did was repeat what I said and make it sound like you were trying to disagree. That doesn't make sense.. I think you had a knee jerk reaction to my post, did not read it all, and started writing. SPECIFICALLY--- NOTICE THE TOPIC SENTENCE OF MY PREVIOUS POST ---**EQUIVOCATION FALLACY** I compared "faith" as the theists use the word, "FAITH IN GOD" and "faith" as it is commonly used, to mean "confidence in something. "I have faith that you will respond to this post." AND FAITH OUTSIDE OF THEISM DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. It is not used as "the evidence for things not seen" except by theists as EVIDENCE FOR GOD. "Well you have to accept it on faith." HORSESHIT I DO!
No need to steer me off the point or put words in my mouth.
You’re telling doG not to have Faith in anything….because according to your examples and definition Faith (in non theistic usage) is delusional and Hope is not and that there are other words to replace the word Faith.
I had previously given rhetorical questions (which you took literal) to show the validity of the usage of the words Faith and Hope outside of theistic commentary.
Just focus on the conversation below. You are using YOUR examples to eliminate the word Faith in all non-theistic usage. That is where we disagree.
doG …:Well, uncle cog, what if the faith is reason based? I see humans (the dirty animals) making scientific advancement in technology, medicine and many knowledge based disciplines, is that not a reasonable reason to have faith in them?”
Cognistic…”2. "advancement in technology, is that not a reasonable reason to have faith in them?" Absolutely not!!! Never be the first one to own a bit of new technology. In six months it is going to be outdated and a newer version will be produced at half the price. Imagine buying an electric car 10 years ago vs. today. Imagine the electric car 20 years from now. Trust the advancements.... no thanks, I am gonna wait for the evidence.”………..