Atheism: the antithesis of cynicism

[_EAllusion]

Just an FYI, "organic molecule" refers to any molecule that contains carbon atoms.

Tsk Tsk. Not quite correct. CO2 isn't organic. Nor is any allotrope of carbon like diamonds. For reasons that are complex, it's all carbon containing compounds minus a list of exceptions you are supposed to know.

[_Quasimodo]

Just an FYI, "organic molecule" refers to any molecule that contains carbon atoms.

Tsk Tsk. Not quite correct. CO2 isn't organic. Nor is any allotrope of carbon like diamonds. For reasons that are complex, it's all carbon containing compounds minus a list of exceptions you are supposed to know.

I stand corrected (crutches and all)! I think you would agree, though, that my explanation is 90% true. Especially in the context that it was stated.

I'll go back and correct it.

[_plunderpunk]

Besides being realists, atheists are also optimists.

access to information via the web makes me quite optimistic about the future.
which isn't to say everyone will shake their reliance on myths and theist lore
over night, but, as a race we have clearly become more sophisticated and scientific minded.
our trust in empirical methods are growing at a time when, especially amongst young people,
past traditions based in submission to blind faith just doesn't cut it anymore.
better informed people are simply more likely to make better choices.

[_Mad Viking]

Where did organic molecules originate in early earth's history?

Do you suppose not knowing the answer to this question justifies believing that a supernatural being did it?

All I'm sayin' is that when one looks at all the stuff related to theories having to do with abiogenesis it doesn't make God belief any less reasonable.

Regards,
MG

If you say so. If you are faced with two unreasonable explanations for something, why would you choose the supernatural one as your explanation? What is wrong with saying I DON'T KNOW?

[_DrW]

Just an FYI, "organic molecule" refers to any molecule that contains carbon atoms.

Tsk Tsk. Not quite correct. CO2 isn't organic. Nor is any allotrope of carbon like diamonds. For reasons that are complex, it's all carbon containing compounds minus a list of exceptions you are supposed to know.

Actually, as I stated above, an organic molecule is one that is composed (wholly or mostly) of both carbon and hydrogen. Atoms other than carbon and hydrogen in organic molecules are called heteroatoms, the most common of which (especially in biogenic organic molecules) are oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur, in that order.

Because of their relative stability, atoms like carbon, silicon and iron, for example, are produced in relatively large quantities in stars compared to elements near them (left and right) in the periodic table. Carbon wins out over its quadrivalent competitor silicon as the nature's "best choice" element to become the basis for living systems because it readily forms an exceeding large number of stable compounds, including polymers, with other relatively plentiful elements on Earth such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur.

Many scientists believe that silicon is probably the next most likely element on which life could be based and have speculated whether it would be possible to find extraterrestrial life forms based this four valent element instead of on carbon.

Those who think of their computers and smart phones as being "intelligent" already may well agree.

[_Hoops]

past traditions based in submission to blind faith just doesn't cut it anymore.
better informed people are simply more likely to make better choices.

Laughably ignorant. There's no one so arrogant as an atheist.

[_Buffalo]

Baloney. You'd probably still own slaves.

Why is that? Both Christians and Jews were slave-owning people. Eventually they gave it up, but not based on their religious principles.

And your commentary is simplistic and childish.

Explain why, don't just argue by assertion.

of course there would. Pagans invented science.

Edited for accuracy

[_Buffalo]

There is no god...

Where did organic molecules originate in early earth's history? There are only two options.

Terrestrial origins.

Extraterrestrial origins.

Which is it? And how did these molecules come to be? Is there any element of faith involved in believing that organic molecules originated through abiogenesis?

Regards,
MG

You mean like protein and RNA? They could have originated on earth, easily. It doesn't really matter.

There is no "faith" involved in abiogenesis. As it stands it's the most likely explanation, best supported by all available evidence, and more evidence in favor is found all the time.

Even if we didn't have a theory, that would still not leave "godditit" as a viable alternative hypothesis.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo -

Atheists are just too diverse to say they are "optimists" or "cynics" or whatever as a rule.

Given the moral deviancy and lack of character and intelligence of god, not believing in him is de facto optimistic.

[_Buffalo]

Laughably ignorant. There's no one so arrogant as an theist.

Given your naïvely literal view of the flood myth, I've edited your post for accuracy.