Sorry. Try again. It appears you’re making things up and moving the goal posts. This is the actual definition.
You’re arguing from an asserted postulate and trying to shift the burden of proof. You are making god / designer claims without presenting any kind of evidence. The issue with your statement is that I do not believe you because you have presented no evidence for those claims.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court ruled that atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment, not that atheism is a religion.
The government itself is prohibited from favoring one religion over another, but also from favoring religion over nonreligion. It is in the constitution here.
Pretending? I’m sorry. It’s a nice touch trying to shift the burden of proof on me over a claim you made. I’m going off of facts.
It should be mentioned that Lee Strobel isn’t a scientist, he’s a lawyer. The facts are only useful to him if they appear to show that his arguments in religious theory and Christian Mythology are valid. To which they aren’t. He never proved that a designer created mankind and neither have you. DNA isn’t a code in and of itself. We assigned a code to it in order to better understand it just like we give names to chemical compounds. That doesn’t make it proof of anything. So in other words, your petty Christian Apologetic Arguments on design are deeply flawed.
I don’t think objective means what you think it means.
Not to the global scientific community, oh in fact only to those who make this subjective claim involving a deity, they cannot objectively evidence. So not objective at all really.
Fascinating, now I am just a bumbling rube of course, but perhaps you can share your erudition and explain why the deity you believe created everything, and that is both omniscient and omnipotent, needed to “fine tune” anything?
While you’re pondering that, perhap you can explain the objective evidence that a deity is possible? Only I must have missed that in all the excitement, only bumbling rube that I am, your argument seems to go straight to the assumption the universe is fine tuned, which seems to be assuming your conclusion in your initial premise, now isn’t that one of those circular reasoning fallacy thingys? Then seems to assume it can only have been your chosen version of your chosen deity that done the fine tuning you have yet to objectively evidence. Isn’t that one of those begging the question fallacy thingys?
Can you link to where the scientists who discovered this got the Nobel prize, only far from your subjective conclusion being objectively evidenced, the entire scientific world seems unaware of this? As if you have again simply assumed your conclusion in your opening premise, isn’t that another of those pesky circular reasoning fallacies? Also, can you be a dear, and explain why you assume precision requires an intelligent designer? Is the deity you imagine to be real not precise? Was it then designed in turn? Hmmm, questions questions…
And that is a bullshit lie that you are peddling in favor to promote your religious beliefs. Francis Crick created that concept for DNA Code in the definition of Codons so that they could use it to identify 3 different nucleotides within the molecule. Speaking of Francis Crick, he was an Atheist.
So when you claimed a code must be created, and we point out that humans created it, you’re suddenly not talking about the code, but about the natural phenomena that the code humans created in fact describes. This is simply hilarious…You know that a leaf doesn’t objectively exist in nature right, it’s just a word humans created to describe something, and that what it describes objectively exists in nature. You see humans didn’t create leaves, but they did create the word that describes it, just as humans didn’t create DNA, but they did create a code to explain it.
It’s gotten old that we have theists like him using Christian Science Apologetics to peddle absurd Creationism theories that try to snow ball off of the works of atheists, such as Francis Crick, in the scientific field in an attempt to make Christianity more compelling.
You have to see the irony though, both Crick and Watson are outspoken atheists, and no, in case you’re wondering this did not change after their groundbreaking discovery.
“Dr Crick, 86, said recently: “The God hypothesis is rather discredited.” Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.”
I bet they’re thrilled when creationists misrepresent it as evidence for a deity.
This made me laugh though…
“The antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long-standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel. When Winston Churchill wrote to him, pointing out that “none need enter [the chapel] unless they wish”, Dr Crick replied that on those grounds, the college should build a brothel, and enclosed a cheque for 10 guineas.”
So far that’s all you’ve demonstrated. Christian Science isn’t real science. It’s relies heavily on the God of The Gaps and thus isn’t reliable for the reason that it’s only purpose is to convert people to Christianity. When Francis Crick, along with James Watson, created the DNA codon concept, it was also to prove Christianity wrong.
If your question cannot be answered with “Atheists do not believe in any gods,” then it is not actually about atheists or atheism. You have obviously confused Atheists with Scientists. A common misconception that most Theists have about Atheists. Asking an Atheist for a better explanation as of why we don’t believe the way you do, doesn’t make your irrational belief somehow more rational.
I agree with your post of course, but he used a straw man fallacy to create an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, two logical fallacies in one sentence doesn’t need much more analysis.
Though if one were minded to respond further, leaving aside the hilarity of the random capital letters, then one could point out that adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, does not in fact have any explanatory powers at all. Test it, change “intelligent designer” in the claim to a wizard or an all powerful Leprechaun, or just about anything you arbitrarily assign magic powers to, and see if his claim loses anything, or explains anything…
NB Note a claim, such as “it must have been designed and created”, is not an explanation.
It took time to develop the techniques to determine the overall structure of the DNA molecule, and then to elucidate the meaning of how the four nucleotides combined in sequence to code for amino acids in proteins. The structure of DNA itself is simple: it consists of a sugar/phosphate backbone and nucleobases. There are four nucleobases, cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A) ,and thymine (T) that pair in strict combinations: A with T and C with G. The combinations of three bases pairs that make up the codons that code for amino acids in proteins were discovered not long after the basic structure of DNA was discovered in the mid-1950s.
The mechanisms that copy DNA and transcribe it into proteins is extraordinarily complex and inefficient. Many other biochemical systems, such as the Krebs Cycle, are also extraordinarily complex and inefficient, which is a good indication that these mechanisms were not designed by an intelligent entity, but rather evolved over a long time period.
Another consideration is that higher animals, such as humans, don’t have the most complex genome. The human genome consists of only 3.1 billion base pairs, while much simpler organisms have many more, such a species of fern with 160 billion base pairs and an amoeba (Polychaos dubium) with 670 billion base pairs. This is a strong indication that species evolved rather than being created by an intelligent designer.
Pray-z jay-zuzz, it iz a code. 
Fnarr, and you think this was an accident, and not caused deliberately by magic, you poor poor heathen foo-uls. 
God dun it, what iz yuh, ignurunt?
Dear oh dear, we iz not anumuls, we iz humans, purleez educate yourself with the word of the law-duh…we iz maid in hiz image…
Eye will pray for y’all…
Holy Camels thats a long post. I’m an intelligent Designer and a former atheist. I came to my beliefs after doing some really deep dives into the science on all four sides. Yes if you want to truly find the best position of two positions you have to look at all four sides:
All my beliefs are from logic and science. I don’t follow any religion but I do pray. At some point I may end up following a religion but haven’t been interested enough to do so for 10 years since converting from Atheism.
So I would take issue respectfully with the word dishonesty be married to Design unless of course you mean religious people that pretend to be ID’ers only. I have heard the arguments from the God believing side lately as well as their debate technique … our side sucks right now. Atheist side has gotten a lot better at their technique and form. Having said that I thought the Atheist side sucked when I was an Atheist 10 years ago … very rude, arrogant, and just didn’t seem that good. But bad debaters and dishonest people don’t make an argument correct or false.
Then why does your profile say you’re an atheist?
I don’t know I clicked on Theist let me check it.
No, you don’t. All one has to do to carry the moniker atheist is answer the proposition “there is / are god / s” with “I don’t believe that.”
If you were once an Atheist, then you know Theism is something that Christians and Pagans “want” to believe in, while having no evidence whatsoever to rationalize or prove the existence of one or more deities.
It’s trivially true of all beliefs anyone holds, that they once did not hold them? I’ve only ever seen theists express a belief in this way, it’s bizarre.
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is irrational to imply disbelief requires alternative arguments.
Yes, we get this a lot from theists and religious apologists, I am extremely dubious, on both counts, but I will keep an open mind.
Since atheism isn’t a belief, but the lack of a particular belief, it makes no sense to imagine one can convert from it.
I don’t agree, you;re the one making a claim, as an atheist I need do nothing except subject your claims to critical scrutiny, and then decide if you have satisfied my threshold for credulity. Atheism is not a claim or a belief.
I’ve never met an Atheist, especially in real life, who would believe that Atheism is a religion. Most fellow Atheists that I befriended were very adamant that they didn’t have a religion. They didn’t worship one, didn’t believe in one, didn’t believe in partaking in religious traditions, or hold religious values. I too don’t see it as a religion or something you “convert” from. I swear some Christians think we worship some Atheist God (Lucifer) and have our own Atheist holy book. No. Absolutely not. And as for scrappykoala, it is hard for me to take any Christian or Islamist seriously when they say that they used to be an Atheist. What I’ve learned from here and in researching how Christianity came to be, I don’t ever see myself picking up a religion. Nope…no friggin way.
