Why would you stop just because there aren't many who think alike? It's one of those incredibly dumb things. I guess in your mind it's really not about who's actually right in a discussion, but it's about who's with the most proverbial fists to back their empty claims up. Unbelievable.

Having said that, I totally respect your view even if I really totally disagree with it. Even if it's indeed a bit silly to continue down this road. A lot of arguments have already passed through this forum and I frankly can't remember any theist's argument that really stuck except for their claim that science can not disprove God. Of course the burden of proof should really be on the one who's claiming something exists. In my mind claiming we can't proof it, isn't enough.

If you believe in random selection and physics and all that I'm sure you can estimate the probability that something like us, here, today, can exist. Following general atheist belief and scientific proof gives me a probability which is essentially zero. Thus it would be only logical if there was something which privileged our development.

edit: In fact, if you now answer "but the probability is not zero, there is the chance that all that happened by accident" I agree. But I hope you see that this argument would not be valid for someone who claims to be on the all-proven side of the world, because, as we just calculated, odds would be so much against him that this would be "blind belief".

No one claimed we say it all came by accident. It's the creationists who claim that we claim that.

There only had to be one first self-reproducing cell at the beginning, and natural selection did the rest. We don't know how that cell came into being, maybe it even was an accident, but if we look at the size of the universe, which is propably even infinite, then that's not impropable at all. And if the universe really has an infinite size, the chance for anything impropable, but possible to happen somewhere in the universe would be 100%.

Even from one self-reproducing cell it would have been highly improbable that higher life should develop. And the probability that intelligent life, dominant through its brainpower (something I question sometimes), would develop, is even smaller.
Your conclusion is correct, of course. But still, why are you here? I mean, your consciousness, the thing that is you, is here, now. Why? You're not here anymore in two hundred years. It hasn't existed before. It's hard to believe that consciousness comes out of nothing.
Furthermore, it's not logical to say that the universe is infinite. Why? Because chances that a dominant species with faster-than-light-travel should have developed somewhere is not zero, thus it must exist. But I'm not a slave yet, so your argumentation leads me to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite.

So my argument remains valid.

@Lukas:
The base things to create a cell where created by some elements colliding with electricity(a bit hard for me to explain in english).
We talked about it in school and that this procedure had been reproduced in a laboratory. In its early stages, the world hat lots of bolts flashing into the water(wild times 8-) )

Those created organic base elements later(after x years) reacted to a simple cell.

Iam not someone wo says there is god(or something like this). IAm more a person that beliefs in technology and biology.

BUT: Iam not someone who says that believing in god is wrong.
Everybody has its own way.
Thats human individuality. If someone cant accept different opinions and points of views, hes absolutely wrong between other humans, doesnt matter if he beliefs in god, in beer, chocolate,Santa or science.


GReets
Rackscha

The human brain helped us surviving. That's what natural selection is all about. If a mutation helps an organism to survive, the new genes will replace the old ones.

"Furthermore, it's not logical to say that the universe is infinite. Why? Because chances that a dominant species with faster-than-light-travel should have developed somewhere is not zero, thus it must exist. But I'm not a slave yet, so your argumentation leads me to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite."
Firt of all, there is evidence that the universe is indeed infinite. It could be curved like the Earth's surface, so we would return to the beginning after going in the same direction all the time, but it rather seems that it's pretty flat on larger scales.
Faster-than-light-travelling has a propability of 0%, because it's not possible. And alien species are so impropable that, if they exist, they couldn't detect us and reach us before both races are extinct, because if they are a million lightyears away, light needs a million light years to get there.

Rackscha: Yeah I know that amino acids have been created this way in a lab, but not a cell. We don't know exactly how these chemicals formed the first living cell.

"Firt of all, there is evidence that the universe is indeed infinite."

Please tell me where you've got that information from.

Various sources. I think jcl said that the universe is most likely infinite. And I e.g. saw a Youtube video of a speech of a physicist who explained that the universe is most likely infinite, because it's flat on large scales.

I'm not saying it's a sure fact, but I'm saying that according to the evidence an infinite universe is likely.

Ah ok, so there is no evidence. We possibly only see the universe flat on large scales because our perception is limited to three dimensions (or four when you take the time as a dimension into account, too), we may see the universe as a projection into our perception like a two-dimensional shadow of a plane moving in three dimensions. As I don't want to hijack this thread, I will stop here.