What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
No one has an idea including scientists but until the scripture can be proven false or the big bang can be proven false just to be fair on both sides, each one of these current seemingly inconclusive  scenarios are just that .
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@FLRW
Yeah they think they know.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 356
Posts: 10,596
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
until the scripture can be proven false 
Dont forget Slifer the Sky Dragon. Atheists have burden of proof to prove Slifer the Sky Dragon isnt true God.

Good luck disproving 3000 Gods, atheists!

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Well, obviously Mall is no Einstein.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Stephen Hawking: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said“What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe what you're talking about has been proven to be fiction so that is off the table.

Real talk .
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 356
Posts: 10,596
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
I believe what you're talking about has been proven to be fiction
Really? Did you search the entire universe and didnt find Slifer the Sky Dragon?

Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Why would I have to search anywhere when we know where the imagination it came out of from?
You guys got to realize the difference between knowing a story that has been made up by a writer versus not knowing.
Don't conflate the two.
Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 587
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Scientific theories are based upon all information available to humanity at the time, and so far, slifer the sky dragon seems more logical. 
Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 587
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
All science started as imagination
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
Yep.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Owen_T
I don't know how you're defining science.
Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 587
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
-->
@Mall
I know that this is kind of off topic, it's a reply to something Mall said at the start of this page. I don't see why you always have to choose one or the other when it comes to science and religion.  You can believe that God started the big bang. Why can't Christians just believe in science too? The bible is great in all, but it's also not known to be completely reliable a lot of authors and a lot of translators had opportunity tamper with the book and add in personal bias.  Also, what did Moses know about the beginning of the world? This sounds like I'm ranting about atheism, but there is actual evidence for Christianity too. Take DNA. This is a common argument used by Christianity, and that's because it's a good one. It would be impossible for DNA to just write itself at the beginning of life. 
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,801
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Owen_T
Maybe you want to quote what I said and I can respond directly to that.

Maybe easier than trying to address all these ideas.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Owen_T
Well, DNA specifically seems to have evolved. If you look at a modern cell, the only thing that DNA actually does is long-term storage of genetic material. The actual "heavy lifting" is done by transcribing DNA into RNA, which then does actual stuff.
But, I guess, what you are actually asking is, where did these kinds of molecules originally came from? The short answer is, they form naturally under conditions that were somewhat common on early earth.
On modern earth, this no longer happens, because life completely changed the composition of earth's atmosphere. Mainly, it exhausted nearly all CO2 and methane and replaced them with O2, which is extremely hostile to organic compounds.
In an atmosphere rich in CO2, methane, nitrogen and ammonium (as it was on early earth), organic compounds form rather easily on their own. This can happen in wide variety of ways, so you're unlikely to find a definitive answer, for which process specifically created what on early earth.
If you look at the basic compounds that make life (sugars, nucleotides, lipids, aminoacids), they all share one key property - they are somewhat soluble in water. This means, that they can accumulate in solution as they get formed. The other junk that is insoluble either sinks or floats to the top.
Lipids also have a curious property - once they reach high-enough concentration, they start forming micelles, membranes and vesicles.
Sugars, nucleotides and amino acids have another property - they can form polymers (polysacharides, nucleic acids and preptides, respectively), that can't penetrate lipid membranes as easily as their respective monomers. They can get trapped in vesicles and therefore can accumulate over time.
Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 587
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
-->
@FLRW
If we know all of this, then how come we haven't been able to replicate these conditions in a lab? It seems like it would be a major scientific breakthrough. There is even a ten-million-dollar prize if you can. Evolution 2.0 AI & Origin of Life Challenge, $10M Prize | HeroX


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Owen_T

Okay, so playing God isn’t that easy. It was only in 2000 that we barely managed to sequence an entire human genome, and now we want to write our own? Sounds like some cheesy science fiction — except it’s not.
In 2008, the first ever synthetic DNA, a man-made version of Mycoplasma genitalium, was built. You can think of M. genitalium as the cheese pizza of unicellular organisms. He’s a little plain, but that’s what makes him the perfect template to build cooler things off from.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
Atheists believe that God doesn't exist.

people call themselves "atheists" for any number of reasons

the exact same way

people call themselves "christians" for any number of reasons
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe what you're talking about has been proven to be fiction
Really? Did you search the entire universe and didnt find Slifer the Sky Dragon?
exactly
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
"there is no god" doesn't seem to contain any implicit ethical code - - in the same way deism, agnosticism, and "soft atheism" don't seem to contain any implicit ethical code

unless you can support a specific ethical framework, the existence of "intelligent designer" is moot