Abiogenesis (Origins)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 03, 2011, 04:08 (4643 days ago) @ broken_cynic

As I read some of the older posts I knew you and I would be butting heads sooner or later Balanced. I've got half an hour or so, let's see what kind of a response I can put together on my phone...
> 
> > > > dhw: Abiogenesis... a key element in atheism
> > > 
> > > broken_cynic: oEr, no. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.
> > > 
> > 
> > Balance_Maintained: A lack of belief in a intelligent creator presumes Abiogenesis. (Somewhere down the line, regardless of how far back you go, you either have to put your vote with one or the other. Unfortunately, there is no third option. Either life arose on its own, or it had help.
> 
> 
> I would agree that atheism implies abiogenesis "somewhere down the line." However, it is still not a "key element." I suspect I shall repeat this many times, but atheism is merely the lack of belief in god(s). You can extrapolate the implications of that lack of belief in any context you like, but you won't be outlining pillars of atheism, just exploring its intellectual consequences.
> > -Then perhaps you miss out on comments by front line atheists like Dawkins and Hawking. I don't retract what I said, and it is in fact a key element. Atheism that rejects abiogenesis on earth is merely pushing the problem further back in time, not changing the problem, and ultimately it become a matter of faith with Chance as your god of gaps. -> > 
> > > broken_cynic: Science is ok with stating what is known and saying of the rest 'we don't know.' We make our hypotheses and test them out, but do not assume them to be true until they are well supported by evidence (see laws and eventually theories.)
> > -> You aren't taking issue with the scientific community, but rather with the media, and also with human nature. 
> 
> The scientific community is largely composed of the pocket protector brigade from high school and many of them don't relate to the rest of the world any better now than they did back then. There are exceptions (Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, etc...) but they are rare (and invaluable!) 'They' (scientists) rarely make dramatic and absolutist claims, rather they stick to in-depth papers on obscure details of a hypothesis. It is the media which oversimplifies and sensationalizes. Combine this with a tendency among the public to see everything in black and white, one side or the other when the real world isn't like that at all (see "species") and you have is a failure to communicate, en masse.
> 
> Your proposed summary however is disingenuous, bordering on outright dishonest. I'll get back to that when I've got a proper keyboard handy.-Again, read some of the so-called Atheists works by 'scientists', not media hounds, like Dawkins and Hawking and then tell me I am wrong, disingenuous, or dishonest. You sir, I think are being dishonest, but not with me, with yourself. -In fact, a book written by a so-called atheist scientist was entitled The God Delusion. You do not get much more blatant or straight from the horses mouth than that.