moieti

I am constantly perturbed by the extent to which theists ignore the self-centered, conceited nature of their claims.

For some inexplicable reason, humans, human consciousness, human thought, the idea of human cognition, these are all *special*, *good* and *natural*, whereas anything concrete created by humans is not. I am at a loss as to how, on a purely subjective level, one can reconcile these two.

What any theist ignores is the incredible multitude of different theistic explanations which have existed. Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Incan, Aztec, Buddhist, Shinto, etc., the list is enormous. These all have value, but when one considers all of them together, one can't help but realize that religion is a fabrication of man's psyche, constantly changing and developing. Or at least, I can't help but realize this. For some reason theists' abilities to discern these sorts of things are either blocked or stagnated by doctrine. It is frustrating to say the least.

Ellis14

Not necessarily.
No it doesn't necessarily.
That is one logical implication of metaphysical materialism, yes.
This last part should be phrased "belief in abiogenesis is one result of not believing in God".

Why can't theists posit any kind of argument or statement without the sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant assumption that their god exists?

If you think they are bad, you should hear the alternatives!
Worse than a Big Friendly Being who himself has no beginning?
Man does have the ability to create life. Have you heard of reproduction?

For somebody who isn't an atheist, who make a lot of claims about atheist's supposedly believe. Unfortunately for you, most of them are wrong.

You mean, 'not believing that God exists', don't you?
No, not all at. Can you say "non-sequitor" ??
You mean, "not believing that God exists or even has a hand", don't you??
No, I think most people, theists and atheists, are very well aware of the fact that they exist.
No it doesn't. Non sequitor again. My football grants that there are things that have no thoughts or feelings. Somethings don't have thoughts and feelings, some things do. What exactly was the point you tried to make?
No, not all one. One must only grant this conclusion if one has some special disposition to this belief. To say that some things have no thought or feeling, and therefore conclude that life is more than a machine, is non sequitor. It doesn't follow, and explains nothing.

What part of life, do you think, is more than a machine? Life is such a vast word, used to mean or encompass many things. What part of it do you think is more than mechanical?
No it's not. It only means this if you think that sentience cannot arise naturally. Science can quite comprehensively show that sentient and intelligence is directly linked to the physical brain and that the materialistic explanation of consciousness is the most plausible.

More non-sequitors from you.
Nonsense. People don't believe in God because there is no proof. You can't reject something that doesn't exist. Do you reject the existence of Tooth Fairies?
A valid premise at last!
Straw man. Again. What exactly do atheists think people are guilty of? It is the same thing at all to what you think they mean? What do you think man is guilty of, exactly?
Nonsense. There has been a lot of destruction and havoc wreaked on the earth by theists and atheists alike. How do you think that atheists are trying to be their own God? I think this is yet another strawman from someone who clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about.
You mean that some people, Christians no less, have the audacity to look for proof of god??! Shocking!! Hell is too good for these people!
Christianity is already the biggest lying deceptive foolish farce in the history of religion, and probably mankind. But you are right, if Christians were any more powerful the world would be a very dangerous place!
And by not writing his name in the stars, God is deliberately making sure that honest, decent people who would genuinely accept him, if only they had proof, don't.

This last comment of yours shows your lack of knowledge and understanding about what you are talking about.

Science doesn't have a theistic view or atheistic view. Science is open to anyone. Science simply makes natural explanations about empirical phenomenon. Scientists can believe in God or not.

To say that the atheistic view is not the product of atheists is ludicrous. Adam believed in God, despite his "fall" so he didn't start atheism at all. Atheism is the disbelief in any God. There is no atheistic belief or way of looking at things, no more than there is any special world-view instrinsic to the denial of tooth-fairies or unicorns.

My advice to you, would be that before you assume to comment on materialism, science, or atheism, you actually know something about it in the first place.

callmejay

Non-sequitor. Many atheists believe this claim, many don't. Many theists believe it, many don't.

Both atheists and theists believe in abiogenesis. Atheists tend to believe in a primordial soup sort of thing while theists believe man was created fully-formed from dirt or dust or air or something.

Your logic makes leaps and jumps.

For example,

Not true. Another non-sequitor. Asserting that a person has feelings while a phone has none does not imply anything about the quality of thought and feeling or what it is "identical" to, whatever that means.

You're playing word games. Try to learn something about how atheists actually think before putting words in their mouths and then arguing with your idiotic conceptions of them.

moieti

Kudos to you for the detailed rebuttal, I only wish the author would read it, which doesn't seem likely at this point...