I'm interested to know if the two go together.


Note:
Please don't ask for definitions. Dictionaries are available even on the internet. Should you be confused by the terms - look them up!

Creationism is abiogenesis.

Of course not, atheism has nothing to say about how life began.

Just to save anyone looking it up, atheism means lacking a belief in God or Gods, that's it.

Any beliefs an individual (theist or atheist) holds as to how life arose are exactly that, beliefs about how life arose.

John

Rainbow needs his own rant thread like Lion. This is becoming just garbage.

You can be an atheist and believe aliens started life on Earth 20 seconds ago and implanted all these memories into our minds. They never happened, Hitler is a figure of our imagination ect...

rainbow wrote:I'm interested to know if the two go together.

No.

Note:
Please don't ask for definitions. Dictionaries are available even on the internet. Should you be confused by the terms - look them up!

The problem with this being that one can never be sure if you yourself are using those commonly accepted definitions. And your "if you don't like mine, provide your own definition" policy does nothing to ensure everyone is on the same page. Or indeed in the same book.

Abiogenesis doesn't require my belief. Why would it?

wikipedia wrote:In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

It requires a lot more work, as most branches of science do, but it is simply the study of a specific area. It requires no more belief than studies into adhesives or cephalopod mating habits.

Anyone here want to discuss their belief in the study of cold-resistant leguminous crops while we're at it?

Nope. Life cannot have always existed, even it it preceded the earth's span of existence and panspermiated here from another planet it could not have survived the birth of the cosmos. Life must have began, living things are comprised of matter that in simpler forms does not live, therefore living things must have arisen from previously non living things; Abiogenesis, the origin of life from non living things.

Of course, what makes this discussion a bit of a non-starter is that at least one member here is likely using a significantly different definition of "atheism" to the other participants.

UnderConstruction wrote:The problem with this being that one can never be sure if you yourself are using those commonly accepted definitions. And your "if you don't like mine, provide your own definition" policy does nothing to ensure everyone is on the same page. Or indeed in the same book.

It isn't a problem. You are free to offer a definition, if you think it will enhance the discussion.

There doesn't seem to be much of a discussion unless there is a belief or two you would like to contribute.

John

Bribase wrote:Nope. Life cannot have always existed, even it it preceded the earth's span of existence and panspermiated here from another planet it could not have survived the birth of the cosmos. Life must have began, living things are comprised of matter that in simpler forms does not live, therefore living things must have arisen from previously non living things; Abiogenesis, the origin of life from non living things.

...then surely your answer should be a "yes"?

How does that make it a 'tenet' of atheism, depending of course, how you have defined 'tenet'.

John

z8000783 wrote:There doesn't seem to be much of a discussion unless there is a belief or two you would like to contribute.

John

It is a poll.

I believe that most of theists have a Creation Myth that shows the origin of life as an act of a Deity/Deities.

Without this, how does a non-theist explain the origin of life?

...just asking.

rainbow wrote:

z8000783 wrote:There doesn't seem to be much of a discussion unless there is a belief or two you would like to contribute.

John

It is a poll.

I believe that most of theists have a Creation Myth that shows the origin of life as an act of a Deity/Deities.

Without this, how does a non-theist explain the origin of life?

However they like.

John

Either you believe that life on Earth has always existed, or you accept abiogenesis.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:The problem with this being that one can never be sure if you yourself are using those commonly accepted definitions. And your "if you don't like mine, provide your own definition" policy does nothing to ensure everyone is on the same page. Or indeed in the same book.

It isn't a problem. You are free to offer a definition, if you think it will enhance the discussion.

Which was exactly my point above. The bring your own definition approach ensures that there is no real discussion, because we are not discussing the same thing.

We could of course start each post with "if atheism is defined as...", and everyone might even be correct in keeping with their own personal definition. But discussion would inevitably have to come back to what is the correct definition, if anything is to be resolved.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:The problem with this being that one can never be sure if you yourself are using those commonly accepted definitions. And your "if you don't like mine, provide your own definition" policy does nothing to ensure everyone is on the same page. Or indeed in the same book.

It isn't a problem. You are free to offer a definition, if you think it will enhance the discussion.

No.

The problem is that you refuse to accept the definition that virtually everyone else in the discussion uses.

If you were using the same definitions that everyone else is, and that have been explained to you innumerable times, you would not need to even ask the question.

How many times have you been told that atheism is nothing more than not having belief in a god? No view on any other subject has any bearing on whether or not someone is an atheist. Being an atheist does not necessitate any particular view on any other subject.