lightgigantic
For instance you posted a link about a meteorite and said it was evidence for abiogenesis.
It is evidence that the building blocks of life(amino acids)were available at the time in many millions of forms. It only takes one combination of these chemicals that is able to reproduce itself by assembling these building blocks from it's environment for evolution to begin. And on the surface of the Earth many quadrillions of such attempts happen every hour of every day of every year. It only has to happen once. Given the right conditions, life seems inevitable, not unlikely(that's a scientific conclusion, not an atheistic one).
The irony, if you want to take such a stance as a prerequisite for an existing world view, being you don't have one.
I have a worldview, you just cannot tell us anything about it other than it is not theistic in nature if all you know is that I am an atheist. You are too busy constructing strawmen to understand that simple idea(which is true).
I posted a link from a professional in the field who explains precisely why that meteorite is not only not evidence but why the subject of abiogenesis is completely shrouded in theory.
What you posted(after, no doubt frantic googling)is old news, what I posted was what was going into the latest issue of Scientific American about a REEXAMINATION of the meteorite in question. Try to catch up to the 2012s, science doesn't stand still, we learn more every day. Just like modern DNA testing can lead to very different legal conclusions, a modern test that did not exist when your cite was written can give you better knowledge.
The fact that you can go on for pages ad nauseum about how there is no evidence for god
Got any? You admitted above that you didn't. Got something new?
and how we have ideas of how life can spontaneously develop etc (ideas that aren't evidenced of course)
So you don't even know what evidence is(and you had just mentioned my evidence of organic molecules from a meteorite). Evidence is the facts you find when you look into a question, ideas are hypotheses to explain that evidence which you then test, if the idea fails you modify or discard it, if it passes the test it is a basis for other ideas. If it passes enough tests it is considered a theory supported by the evidence.
that effectively fulfill any necessity for god etc
What's god got to do with it? You don't use "And then a miracle occurred" in any scientific formulation if god is not evidenced, that whole Occam's Razor thing.
Its simply your (non-evidenced) (atheistic) world view
But you know nothing about what my worldview is, except it doesn't include a god. I could think that aliens planted a garden, but then you have the same infinite regression problem that you currently have with god, IE who/what made the aliens/god, who/what made that,...
Not that the fact that your world view is not evidenced suddenly renders it non-existent or whatever .... quite frankly if you can't understand how evidence doesn't preclude a world view you need to catch up on some research.
I have never claimed that god(whatever that means)does not exist BECAUSE I understand evidence. And my worldview is entirely supported by evidence even if my conclusion about the existence of any god is that he most probably doesn't exist. It's not certain, just most probable.
I mean what is it precisely that a star is doing that a chair is not.
Fusing Hydrogen? Radiating enormous energy? Losing mass at a billion tons per second? When a star goes supernova it ceases to exist as a star, though it may leave a cooling corpse behind.
1. technically abiogenesis is about the spontaneous generation of life from lifeless matter.
IOW life coming from life is not abiogenesis
Yep.
2. You don't find any theistic theories propounding life being created by any living entity aside from god (compared to the numerous atheistic theories propounding how it can be done)
Nope, Deism. In Deism the god is thought to have created the Universe and it's laws and then to not have anything else to do with it(similar to Spinoza's god). Nature then takes the matter of the Universe and creates life according to the laws of the Universe(IE exactly how scientists think it was done and which you think of as atheistic). You just don't know what you are talking about, your view of the subject is narrow and uninformed.
3. If you are writing off god creating life as abiogenesis you are simply begging the question since that then leaves us with the question of god's existence
Nobody is writing off anything, they just go in the direction the evidence leads us in, keeping our private opinions out of it. And the conclusions we come to, while never certain, tend to be closer to the truth as time goes on and more is learned. You start with the conclusion "god did it" and are immediately lost in the wilderness of no evidence whatsoever or seeing all evidence through god colored glasses, glasses that hide evidence that doesn't fit your conclusion. Our conclusions come at the end of the process, yours come even before you look for any evidence.
So the atheist is anticipating/predicting that life can be shown to spontaneously arise from matter
No, the scientist are showing this likely to be the truth, some of those scientists are theist as well. That's the difference between thinking you know the answer(god), and actually investigating to find what the answer could be. So far, the Deists seem to be more right than you are. And even atheists admit Deists may be right about god(they are simply unconvinced so far).
Even if you are talking about atheists anticipating a next life (ie buddhists) its certainly not the end game they have in mind .... which kind of makes their views of nirvana (nir- no, vana - variety) remarkably similar to the eternal oblivion anticipated by their more mainstream brothers
Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife, they seek a ceasation of the suffering of this life.
nir·va·na /nɪrˈvɑnə, -ˈvænə, nər-/ Show Spelled[nir-vah-nuh, -van-uh, ner-] Show IPA
noun
1. ( often initial capital letter ) Pali, nibbana. Buddhism . freedom from the endless cycle of personal reincarnations, with their consequent suffering, as a result of the extinction of individual passion, hatred, and delusion: attained by the Arhat as his goal but postponed by the Bodhisattva.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) Hinduism . salvation through the union of Atman with Brahma; moksha.
3. a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nirvana
its more that having god provides an alternative to being subject to illness, aging and death as "all there is to existence"
Too bad that there is no evidence that such a god exists, because you are going to age(if you are lucky), might get sick and you will die. An alternative that is not really available(by all indications) is one it's kind of foolish to keep insisting we put at the front of the quay.
I said that atheists call upon the many chaotic processes in the universe as an alternative to god.
Again with this useless strawman! Scientists(both atheist and theist)have defined the chaos that is inherent in the quantum, and the apparent chaos we see in the Universe is really just a measure of our inability to know and understand all of the various particles, trajectories and energies and the complex interactions of the forces involved, it really follows the laws of the Universe exactly, it is our perception that is lacking and chaotic. THESE ARE FACTS. And atheists have no need for an alternative to god, we don't believe in magic in any form. Most atheists simply accept what the scientists have found to be true to the limits of our current knowledge, provisionally.
I brought this up to clarify key differences between what the atheist and theist world view anticipates/predicts since you made the comment that atheism says nothing about the universe and predicts/anticipates nothing.
And you have not only failed to clarify, you have dumped a bunch of straw in the puddle, further muddying the water. Being an atheist means only that you answer "No" when asked if you believe some theists magical thinking, it tells you nothing about the cosmology that atheist may espouse EXCEPT that it doesn't contain a god.
Grumpy
