Appolinaria

Before you throw around words like straw-man, please be aware of what I am arguing. Any idea concerning the origin of life is based solely on faith. We have no evidence of other life or how self replication started. Lack of evidence equals faith. So if you believe life is from a spontaneous event, that is still faith until it is observed occurring elsewhere. Sorry.

All deists are theists. And no, doesn't sound particularly like deism. What do you put faith into believing created the spark of life, Phi for All? Surely you don't ignore the question. Where does your faith lie? So a monotheistic religion is better than a polytheistic one? Is that what you're saying?

Discovering pre-biotic molecules is not an answer to anything. How self replication began is still unanswered.

Theism doesn't necessarily denote belief in a personal, anthropomorphic god. So to redefine theism as however you want, to pick one definition out of many and exclude the rest, is unfair. So an asteroid carrying alien molecules that sprouted life as we know it is more feasible? May I ask why? Especially since you have no evidence for aliens existing, or an asteroid carrying the seeds of life? In fact, no evidence beyond a certain point to point us in any direction at all? Agreed. Science takes place of the "supernatural". That was precisely my point. Solid conclusions cannot be drawn without evidence. However I define "God" should not make me broken. If I choose not to believe in "God" I am also not broken. I can only speculate about the origin of life as we know it... and accept that what I believe may have to change when the evidence is provided.

One problem that I cant seem to understand is why all theists are grouped into one category when there are multiple definitions for "god". What if my deities are the life forms where our DNA molecules originated and were brought to earth on an asteroid. Can't happen? Tell me why? The first self replicating molecules responsible for our existence have not been explained, this is argued between scientists. The furthest evidence we can get our hands on isnt sufficient to give a definite yes or no to any theory. Therefore, there is no right or wrong explanation. Sure, a deity may sound ridiculous to many, but it is also extremely irrational to draw a full conclusion without evidence. You can regard it as highly unlikely, but in order to call someone wrong or broken you must have evidence to the contrary. You cannot create a map of the sea without first exploring it. Arguing over whose fantasy map is prettier is a waste of time.

Ive also received hundreds of messages stating I'm the most amazing and intelligent creature to ever walk the planet. It's offensive that someone really thinks I'm the most amazing and intelligent creature on Earth. Obviously it's the entire universe. Life is tough sometimes. Some people are just jerks.

But that takes an incredibly long time of organisms with weak genes dying and subsequent changes to their species characteristics, no? I can learn what took hundreds of years to discover in a few years. The brain is unique. Technology allows us to keep people alive, and genes propagating, where they would otherwise perish in nature. You're right. I've reconsidered and it is really silly to think humans are superior to bacteria :/ Oh well, you live, you learn. I think my desire to rationalize nature and evolution is by believing there is some kind of ultimate goal... That no matter where life begins and in differing circumstances it will follow the same relative pattern. This is a flaw with my thinking. No doubt was the brain a wonderful thing to be introduced along the timeline of life, but I now see how humans are not superior to bacteria. Nor did I intend to cause offense by neglecting to realize the deep complexities of nature that require much study to even begin to understand.

That show is inappropriate and a mockery

Yeah, that's a good idea. Signing contracts over a period of time.

Edit- I was thinking about this today.. Since animals are mobile, perhaps the brain has evolved because it's beneficial to one of our survival methods- flight. If an asteroid were headed towards Earth, bacteria would have to adapt to the new environment in order to survive, whereas we could use our brains to move. Can the differences between how plants and animals react to an environmental change be compared to how intelligent life versus say, bacteria, would react? Is consciousness in life forms just a structure, like eyes or a mouth, but one that lets them have greater mobility across the universe?

Calm down boys. Vulgar banter is just what's used by the common folk. I was only following the rules. I request a long apology, on the ground begging for forgiveness- or an amendment to the rules.

I've attempted to explain my reasoning in a previous post. ^ "But there is no denying that for some reason our neural blobs allow us to bypass years of evolution in order to equip ourselves for survival. It is no longer our biological processes that solely keep us alive. There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings. If the brain keeps evolving I only see our abilities in doing so becoming more effective. To assume that bacteria will have the last laugh is premature, especially when the capabilities of an organism with a more complex brain than ourselves are obviously unknown."

In some countries I'm sure you die before you can attempt suicide anyway. And in many more I'm sure no one notices you're gone. The world is a scary place. I went to bed last night with the image of a baby cub being eaten by a lion and had my morning coffee to pictures of dead children in Syria. If you ask me, people who haven't contemplated suicide are robots and/or psychopaths. I absolutely believe people should be able to commit suicide. I think assisted suicide should be available to everyone.

My laziness isn't an excuse to burst into threads asking questions. I will read all of the previously discussed things. It may take a while. Carry on.

This isn't just a "what is atheism?" question, it pertains to what you're discussing with Villain. Anyway, I will read previous posts. Apologies for the apparent annoyance.

INow, I have respect for you and the forum rules and I'm not trying to derail anything, but I don't see how that makes sense. I don't see evidence for 10 legged horses, but I'm NOT going to actively believe they don't exist... so then it comes down to my ability to get evidence, not whether it exists or not, otherwise I would hold the belief that they don't exist. So there is a possibility. Isn't that agnosticism? How in the hell is that atheism? Dawkins himself admits he is an agnostic. He has no proof that God doesn't exist which he says is why he is agnostic, not an atheist. If you can't be sure God does not exist and actively believe God doesn't exist, then it's my impression that you are agnostic. I need further clarification.

Wait, what?

Yeah, it's easy to miss that. Also, I make grammatical errors all the time.... it doesn't mean you're any less intelligent. Good for you for having an interest in science and understanding at such a young age.

Animals are so fucking stupid. I hate them. I hate all life in general. Especially manatees. I mean come on. It's called glass you bozo. Read a book.

before you leave, I think you should realize that there are a lot of nice people on here. also some impatient ones, but no one who would intentionally want to hurt your feelings. that is against the rules. I'm sure anyone who has been rude to you would be glad to give you an apology.

do you want to talk about it with someone?

What is orgasm? An energy drink?

That could also be a survival mechanism. It might display being higher up on the ladder and therefore attract more mates.