When did 'LIFE" begin? (Science in relation with the Biblical description)

[SGOS]

Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.

Actually, I have a few atheist friends like that, although none of them are about to jump ship.  They just don't believe it, and for them, it's not worth arguing about.  In fact, it's not worth thinking about.  They just reject theist claims out of hand.  At most, if pushed to explain their position, they would say something like burning bushes, talking serpents, and all that sort of nonsense is silly, and they might think you were daffy for even asking them.  It's like it's just not worth their time.

I actually envy them.  I spent a hell of a lot of my life in theist apologetics trying to find a reason to believe in the absurd, looking at the problems from all different angles, passing it off as useful metaphor, or trying to invent a god type being that didn't self contradict.  My friends, didn't waste their time.  We both ended up in the same place, but I spent way too much energy on a totally useless enterprise of theist rationalization.

On the other hand, I don't envy theists who come to belief without thinking so hard, just like some of my atheist friends don't.  It's actually a lazy way to go through life.  I tend to make a big deal about it, but there isn't much need to do that.  Just stop and ask, "Could a burning bush or a donkey talk?"  You don't have to try and turn it into rocket science.  It's not that complicated... except when you are brainwashed.

[Mike Cl]

Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.

Yeah, that is always possible, I guess.  But Mouse doesn't fit into that category.

[Unbeliever]

I'm unsure of just what category he does fit into. Maybe none at all.

[Mike Cl]

I'm unsure of just what category he does fit into. Maybe none at all.

We have had a handful of verbose theists come through here, who were glib, and full of long posts.  They believed they had invented the theist view of the universe and just knew they had all the answers.  most claimed they were recovering atheists and so just had to be right.  And they kept saying it over and over.  Blowhard is a good descriptor for them.

[Unbeliever]

I think the word "verbose" is an understatement! Many of them have been so loquacious as to be suspected of having logorrhea.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.

"Many" is not a number, it's an assertion.

[Unbeliever]

Well, I don't know what the actual number is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, I don't know what the actual number is.

Yeah. The reason I ask is because atheists, especially converts, are, as I understand it, usually better informed about their positions than believers.

[Unbeliever]

Those that care enough to inform themselves do so, others don't care enough to put the effort into it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Those that care enough to inform themselves do so, others don't care enough to put the effort into it.

But  you can't draw a line between them. I knew I was an atheist long before I start studying the matter. Born in 1951, not interested in all the "reading" until 2008. You don't know if I'm unusual or typical. Neither do I.

[Unbeliever]

You're right, I don't know.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Tantrums, accusations, Trump dysfunction disorder, hate, blame, straw man arguments,

Delusions and projections of an uppity piece of wood and wire...

One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing.

As literature, and as a book of man, it's fascinating. I say this as an avid listener of the Bible Geek podcast. It's a book with a sordid tale of how it came to be, and an endlessly convoluted and interesting pedigree.

As a science book, on the other hand, the Bible is indeed worthless. On any level the bible would be interesting, it's not true; on any level it would be true, it's not interesting. I find in no plain reading of the Bible anything resembling how the universe, the solar system, the Earth, life, and humanity came to be in its present form.

All I've seen out of you is you using the Bible as a ventriloquist dummy to make it say what you want it to say, only it's clear that you haven't been keeping up with the latest science says on these topics either because even your ventriloquist performance doesn't intersect very well with the latest in scientific findings either.

Or, well, even basic science, either.

For instance, I didn't need anything other than basic science to tell you that it is impossible for the Earth to form as a mudball. This is because you have the Earth, made of mud, in the vacuum of space.

Read that again:

Mudball. In a vacuum.

If you need help, you will find a relevant diagram in the spoiler.

[spoiler]Phase Diagram of Water


Please note which phase is absent in vacuum (very low pressure).
[/spoiler]

Sorry, MT, I can see your mouth moving.

Facts!
Not a single one.

Projection. You don't have facts. All you have are misconceptions about science, and I know my science well enough to see that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with it to any recognizable degree.

[Baruch]

Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.

Sophistry was invented by libertine Greeks, who were irreligious at best.  But the theist quickly leaned from them ;-)  Originally the idea in polytheism, that you had apologetics or polemics was unthinkable.  It simply was how your tribe was.

[Baruch]

You're right, I don't know.

Is that you, Socrates?

[Blackleaf]

Yeah. The reason I ask is because atheists, especially converts, are, as I understand it, usually better informed about their positions than believers.

There are casual theists just as there are casual atheists. But for those who are more serious about their faith or lack thereof, atheists definitely tend to know the Bible better than the Christians.