Saturday, July 26, 2008

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum.

Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence.

Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help.
Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives.

With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of God, the Flying Spagettii Monster (FSM), is that we know what the raw chemicals are capable of doing (or NOT doing, in this case) and we know that the overall reactions produce results that go in the wrong direction (away from life). All the origin of life experiments are failures at providing anything that actually works... but since the atheists "knows" that the materialistic universe is all that exists, he invokes his own mantra about unknown conditions and processes and convinces others that THIS is the only logical and scientific response in spite of the resulting facts.

To put it bluntly, naturalistic scientists do not really have a clue how life arose. They have a bunch of "just so" stories and THAT is ALL! Their experiments are absolute dead ends. But, hopefully, "someday" (they believe) scientists may eventually find those "unknown processes" which will allow matter to self-organize into the bio-chemical equivalent of a von Neumann machine (named for mathematician and founder of cybernetics, John von Neumann (1903-1957).

The “simple” cell remains a staggering example of the stupendous complexity required for even the simplest bio-chemical “von Neumann” self-repairing, self-reproducing, metabolizing machine to exist. And in an environment where malfunctions equal death, is it really probable that such “mechanisms” could evolve by natural processes? Not likely. In fact, it is highly unlikely that many of the sub-cellular molecular machines found within a single cell could evolve by natural processes.


Theists believe that the God that exists has revealed himself. Is there faith involved? Absolutely! The question isn’t whether or not faith is involved (we ALL have faith in things we can’t demonstrate to be true empirically) but whether or not that faith is reasonable. The problem then becomes defining what is reasonable. Evidence, it seems, is not regarded as evidence until it is first PERCIEVED to actually be evidence. It was not too long ago when evidence that stones were falling from the sky was denounced as impossible because everyone just “knew” that stones could not fall from the sky. Today we call these stones meteorites. The evidence was there but the belief paradigm at that time would not accept it. In other words, we all filter out what the evidence really is based on our world-view or basic belief paradigm. We are all prejudiced. So, which bias is the best bias to be biased with? I believe the theistic bias is a very good bias...


Keep reading.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Dawkins and the Jews

These are old news, but still interesting:

Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy

(IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.

A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein, adding “This impact spreads within the intellectual community, and then trickles down to the general populace.”


I agree with Dawkins about the Jews.

But look at Dawkins's attitude.

What amazes me is not Dawkins's authoritarianism, it's his candid way to express it. Why should the majority of population -who believes in God- accept without opposition the imposition of an atheistic agenda? No wonder people fight against the imposition of the teaching of neo-darwinism in schools.

It's clear Dawkins doesn't believe in Democracy.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Atheists and Death

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyound dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

Bertrand Russell.



Currently I feel that belief in God is better for mental health than atheism. It's easy to see why atheism can lead to cynicism and lack of hope.

Hoping that there is an ultimate purpose is perfectly rational, even if there is no evidence, because being optimistic is more productive than being pessimistic and hope is better than hopelessness.


See this article:

Atheism and Death: Why the atheist must face death with despair

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Many religions, a common ground

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen Roberts


The presupposition behind these phrase seems to be that any concept of God is equally arbitrary, and any believer of whatever religion base her beliefs on pure whim or blindly follows any religious tradition she received in her upbringing.

If this believer rejects other religious traditions for being incompatible with her own, she rejects these traditions because she thinks they are human-based, or devil-based: they don't originate from her god.

In order to become a full atheist she only has to realize that her beliefs are equally arbitrary to the ones she criticizes.

But these presuppositions are wrong. Not every religion sees other religious traditions as purely arbitrary. See Catholicism for example: it currently teaches that there is value in other religious traditions. There is even a line of apologetics that sees the different religions as evidence that human beings have a natural thirst for spiritual things, even when their particular beliefs may be misguided at times. Somehow people have a perception of God that is beyond doctrine.

Many religious persons these days subscribe to different forms of monotheism. It's true that some of these monotheisms are mutually exclusive in some of their beliefs; but these doesn't imply that they don't have a core of common religious experience they express according to their particular religious idiosyncrasies, that religions don't try to reach an spiritual dimension that is truly there.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

  1. Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist.


  2. Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence.


  3. Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist.


  4. Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not.


  5. God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not.


  6. Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa.


  7. There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa.


  8. God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not.


  9. Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa.


  10. There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God.


See also:

The invisible pink unicorn comparison tactic / Santa Claus gambit.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Essential Theism

The essence of theism consists in trusting that there is an ultimate cosmic purpose in which everyone of us takes part.

In the end, everything will work for good, somehow.

Theism is an attitude of wholesome confidence towards life.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

The Irrational Atheist

This is good news.

The book "The Irrational Atheist" is now available online for free.

Check this link:

The Irrational Atheist

“In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day plays the card that the atheists consider their trump—reason—against them in a devastating and highly entertaining manner. With clarity and wit, he presents a wealth of evidence to demolish the arguments put forward by the leading ‘brights’ of the day.”
—Chad Elder, Fraters Libertas