If you think you are an atheist? - You had better think again! (continue reading).

So, you think you are an atheist?
To be a genuine atheist, one of the things you MUST believe is - that life originated by entirely, natural processes.
The questions below should make you ask yourself whether your belief in atheism is intellectually tenable.

Question 1.
Do you believe that life can self-generate from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to Question 2.
If you answer no, please go to the footnote at bottom of this questionnaire.

Question 2.
Do you believe that matter is inherently predisposed (programmed) to develop life whenever conditions are conducive (suitable)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 3.
If you answer no, please go back to question 1 and reconsider it.

Question 3.
Can you explain how an inherent predisposition for life originated in matter?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 4.
If you answer no, please go back and reconsider question 1.

Question 4.
Do you believe there is purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, please go to question 5.
If you answer yes, you are certainly not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.

Question 5.
Can you explain how matter can be inherently predisposed to self-generate life, if there is no purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, you are not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.
If you answer yes, please give your explanation in the comments section. But, before doing so, please read "Background to why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe." which is written below the following footnote...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
Footnote:
If your answer to question one is 'no', you are certainly not an atheist. Unlike atheists, you respect and agree with the following scientific laws and principles - so, well done!

The Law of Biogenesis. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It tells us that life does not self-generate from sterile matter, under any circumstances.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is regarded as one of the premier laws of the universe, it tells us that the universe is subject to entropy. That the universe running down towards an ultimate demise in energy potential and order. The self-generation of life requires an increase in order and complexity which violates the second law. The only way entropy can be temporarily halted or reversed is through an input of GUIDED energy.

Information Theory.
Life requires complex instructional and constructional information (which is encoded in DNA). Information Theory tells us that such information cannot arise of its own accord by purely, natural processes.

The Law of Cause and Effect.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
Whatever produced life (its cause), must be entirely adequate to produce it. That means, the original cause of life should not be inferior to it in any way. The cause of life should be capable of producing every property we observe in living things.
A random, or chance, interaction of energy and matter (or a 'big bang' explosion) cannot produce self-replicating cells, genetic information, or any of the qualities which are uniquely attributed to living things, such as intelligence, consciousness, creativeness, purpose, decision making, ideas and ideals.
____________________________________
Background: ‘Why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe.’ (If you answered 'yes' to question 5, please make sure you read this before commenting).

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life on Earth, and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?
And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It is now universally trusted as the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and it is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect.

So, is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?
The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.
The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing…. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely, fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, as an effect cannot be greater than its cause, any proposed first, 'natural' cause, of the universe and life, would have to intrinsically embody the entire potential for the creation of natural laws, information, order, life, consciousness, intelligence etc.
What do atheists themselves say about this....
In a debate (available on youtube), the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins, while trying to describe the first cause (as being something coming from nothing), claimed, the something that he believed came from nothing, would have had to be something simple. Amazingly, he ignored the law of cause and effect which tells us the exact opposite, i.e. that first cause could not be simple. It tells us that the first cause of everything HAD TO BE ADEQUATE (sufficient in every respect) to produce the effect. The effect (the complex universe, life and intelligence) certainly isn't simple.
So, Dawkins believes the first cause can be inferior to the effect. Or, put more simply, he believes something which came from nothing can give what it doesn't possess - and he calls that science!
It is not surprising that an audience (with common sense) found his attempt to define ‘nothing’ hilarious.
See here how the world famous, atheist Richard Dawkins foolishly tries to define 'nothing' as 'something' and is shocked at the audience reaction.
youtu.be/b6H9XirkhZY
Dawkins famously wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ this video clip reveals his own delusions.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated – and, also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.
For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So, there must be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

Thus, atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they must explain where that predisposition for life comes from?
It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.
Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.
Thus, the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.
The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

Therefore if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?
Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong – period.

Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart said, "The most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face."
______________________________________________
The real theory of everything.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211
Neo Darwinism - completely bonkers.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
____________________________________________

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Taken on: July 11, 2019

Tags:

Alice Roberts

Adam Rutherford

Voltaire lecture

QEDcon

question explore discover

Darwin college

Darwin college lecture series

science versus atheism

March for science

evidence over ignorance

science not silence

science march

standupforscience

science matters

Andrew copson

Steven pinker

evolution debunked

science versus evolution

Darwinism has failed

truth in science

atheism

origin of life

abiogenesis

law of biogenesis

atheist

secular humanist

Richard Dawkins

atheist delusion

first cause

the science guy

Bill Nye

bill maher

professor Stephen Hawking

Sir David Attenborough

Stephen Fry

ACLU

AC Grayling

science camp

London School of Economics

Lawrence Krauss

Lawrence M Krauss

Dr Brian Cox

Bertrand Russell

British Humanist Association

FFRF

RDFRS

Darwin Day lecture

Stephen Hawking

Atheist Foundation of Australia

Carrie Poppy

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Christopher Hitchens

reason rally

James Randi

global atheist convention

Eddie Izzard

Jeremy Corbyn

American Civil Liberties Union

Ricky Gervais

liberal democrats

freedom from religion foundation

LSE Space for Thought

Ken Ham

Kate Smurthwaite « less

Sets appears in: • Christianity • The evolution scam more » • Atheism - the religion of naturalism. « less

Groups appears in: • Atheism • !FlickrSoup for Soul more » • Protests, Political Art, Democracy, Social Change • #flickr • !Social Issues • *Really Unlimited* • ANYTHING & EVERYTHING PHOTOGRAPHIC / NO SL/AI • ! ART & PHOTOGRAPHY ! All artistic works welcome • "I AM TELLING YOU A STORY HERE. CAN YOU SEE IT?" • "Smörgåsbord" (Unlimited Posting - Award 3) • "Unlimited Photos: No Rules" (NO AI, CGI or SL images) • A-theism • ! ♡ Flickrian ♡ No Rules:) Feel Free to invite your Friends! • ! Flickr Cafe ! • ! F l i c k r | S t y l e ! • ! Flickr Lover ! • ! The Flickr ! • ***Flickr Global • !Excellent Photos • * Everybodys Photo Group *(All Welcome) • !*ALL ARE WELCOME*! • !*Flickr All Stars*! • * just photos * no rules please use comment code appreciated « less

Stats: 11,294 views / 20 comments

go back

Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: