Originally posted by wolfgang59Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why would you want to ask those questions of an atheist? They have
nothing to do with atheism. You may as well title the thread as "Twelve
questions to ask a philatelist".
If you naively believe that not being able to answer the questions validates
theism then ask yourself this; if Man was not around and those questions
were given to cats and d ...[text shortened]... re
must be a god?
If something is unknown it does not make "god dunnit" a likely answer !!
Why would you want to ask those questions of an atheist? They have
nothing to do with atheism.
> The following curious statement by googlefudge became the overarching reason for presenting these questions:
Originally posted by googlefudge
The world wasn't created.
No I never wondered who made the world as a child.
I have never ever in my life at all in any way shape or form whatsoever had "an awareness of
someone bigger and stronger than any human being or God-consciousness "A point at which a
person becomes aware of the existence of a Supreme Being and becomes accountable for his or
her choices"?.
How many times do I have to say this before you believe me?
EDIT: And yes I have been an atheist since birth. Thread 157261 (Page 3)
> In 6. above "Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?" googlefudge replied:
"Not relevant to atheism. Not totally sure which discipline/s cover this... probably start with neuroscientist and take it from there."
> Please help us all understand how googlefudge can claim to "... have been an atheist since birth." and to state that 'free will is illusory' and "Not relevant to atheism"? Did genetic predisposition play a role? Some scientific explanation?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAn atheist can have all sorts of reasons for being an atheist. If you ask questions which are specific to a particular field of study, it would be best to ask them to people who are experts in that.
What justification do you offer for the belief that all of these questions are "not relevant"?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbymathematics was invented.
"4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?"
Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"4- we invented it using our brains. maybe there are better systems for describing the laws of nature that we h ...[text shortened]... he eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature"?
how do you know it is 'eerie' at 'describing the laws of nature'. it might turn out that maths is actually inefficient at describing the laws of nature, maybe there are better methods we have not thought of yet.
it should also be taken into consideration that we are still inventing maths, new methods and techniques. the maths of 200b.c. wouldnt be very effective in describing quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby1-5. Don't know.
[b]"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist" ["Some of these obviously involve multiple questions…"]
1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
3. How do you account for the physical parameter ...[text shortened]... y Knight. http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/twelve-questions-to-ask-an-atheist-2/[/b]
6. Even if free will does not exist, humans will necessarily behave as though it does.
7. No. Morality is a social convention (fad is a little too fickle). There are certainly differences of opinion as to what constitutes murder, for example. Or theft. You see that within Christianity as well. Few today would endorse stoning sassy children to death.
8. Humans will always value human life more than non-human life. That is unavoidable. But humans are beginning to realize that all of life is interconnected in myriad ways, and that maintaining a healthy biodiversity is ultimately beneficial to human life.
9. I don't think there is a single atheist who will cite "the desire for moral autonomy" as the reason for his non-belief. That is a strawman erected by theists.
10. The "positive" effect that religion may have once had is that it contributed to the organization and direction of society. Religious societies were able to outcompete non-religious (or less religious) societies due to their single-mindedness of purpose. Religion, therefore, was a better strategy for propagating and transmitting cultural memes. But that situation has changed drastically in the last few hundred years.
If religion retains any useful function today, it is as a bulwark against cultural materialism and the relentless spread of consumerist society.
11. No. But I am not required to behave in a rational fashion.
12. I would become a Hutterite. For it is my opinion that it is they who follow most closely what it was that Jesus had in mind. I think Jesus would find most of what passes for Christianity in the world today to be simply repugnant.
1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
Don't know. It would seem that our current knowledge tells us that particles can jump in and out of existence without reason. If so, why should this not be the case for whatever the big bang was. Most importantly though, until we have a reason to assume a "cause" exists and we can study it in some way, we must assume that no "cause" exists.
2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
Don't know, but I would guess yes. I reckon there must be a gray area between the small and the big where the laws of classical physics meet up with the laws of quantum mechanics. But then, I'm an atheist, not a physicist so what do I know??
3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
For the billionth time: the universe is not finely tuned for stars, planets and life. Stars, planets and life are more or less finely tuned for the "physical parameters of the universe". Who knows what the universe would've looked like if certain parameters had been different? The universe does not exist to sustain life. It simply exists. There are vast expanses in space where there is no life and where probably life will never get. Does that mean that space should not exist? The universe will probably still exist billions of years after all life will have faded away. Do you think the universe will be weeping when all life has vanished?
4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?
We have found that the rules of maths explain what we see in the universe best. So, we keep on using it and get better at it.
It's a bit like asking Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of English, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of English when trying to communicate
5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?
Yes. It is the explanation that can be tested and has been proven. It requires the least amount of unproven assumptions. As to why we are not capable of reproducing it: why should we? Nature has had millions if not billions of years time for life to evolve, we've been trying to understand it for maybe a couple of thousand years and we've been only making very serious progress in the last ~250 years. Why should we by now have discovered everything and have answers for everything?? Where are those scientists that say we know all there is to know? Cut us some slack, man. We already know a hell of a lot more than any animal that has ever lived. I'd say we're not doing too shabby.
6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?
Yes, it is. No, punishment is ultimately not justifiable. But we are not perfect. We make the best of a difficult situation. One of the reasons why we "punish" is because most people want to experience a kind of revenge when they have been hurt. That's maybe not good (or maybe it is), but it's the way it is. At the same time, we punish because we think it will be better for the whole of society. We hope the fear of punishment will make someone think twice before committing a crime. But I think we are beginning to learn that that almost never works.
7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?
Human morality is the set of rules that we as a society live by because we think it will be best for everyone. Ultimately, it stems from animal behavior protecting the group by having certain rules.
8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?
We are animals and animals protect their own species first. That's why we consider the life of a human child more valuable than that of an endangered species. This works the same for pretty much any animal.
9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?
No. Someone can not say "I choose to not believe in god because I want to have moral autonomy." Either you believe, or you don't believe. If you say you don't believe because you don't like the rules that god has set, you actually do believe.
10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?
Difficult to say. I'd say it has played a big part in our development so you might say that it was net positive. At the same time, how would we've ended up if we'd not found religion? We've also had our fair share of violent behavior and you might say it is partly the reason why we are fairly successful as a species. Does that make violent behavior positive? Doubtful.
It should also be pointed out that religion is seemingly becoming less and less important. Will religion still play such a big role 10,000 years from now? I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say no.
11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?
Yes, we animals want to save our fellow beings because it is good for the group. Naturally, we assess the risk and might decide it's not worth it. Also note that, when given the option, we will sooner save our own child than someone else's.
12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true? What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?
I'd probably have a mental breakdown.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMost, if not all, religions contain attempts to 'explain' the universe.
What justification do you offer for the belief that all of these questions are "not relevant"?
They purport to contain answers to questions of what, when where, why ect...
Why are we here, where is here, what is here, how did it come to be...
And mostly they 'explain' and 'answer' these questions by saying a variant of
'god did it'.
Atheism doesn't do this. Atheism contains absolutely no explanations of anything.
ALL atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods for whatever reasons any given atheist
happens to subscribe to.
Now movement atheism is a little different in that as a group movement atheists
have adopted and included other things, like a moral code and general belief in
the power and utility of science and skepticism ect.
But there is no unified atheist position on anything other than that atheists do not
have a belief in gods.
SCIENCE on the other hand IS the concerted rational effort to explain the universe
and answer these kind of questions.
So when I answer all your questions with 'go ask a scientist' it's because atheism doesn't
answer these questions, science does.
And given that most atheists are not scientists... Although most scientists are atheists..
it's pretty dim to ask an atheist these questions.
As ever you have it backwards.
You START with your religion and then build everything on top of it.
Atheism is a result, not a starting point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Great King Rat
[b]1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
Don't know. It would seem that our current knowledge tells us that particles can jump in and out of existence without reason. If so, why should this not be the case for whatever the big bang was. Most importantly though, until we have a reason to assume ...[text shortened]... to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?[/b]
I'd probably have a mental breakdown.[/b]
3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
For the billionth time: the universe is not finely tuned for stars, planets and life. Stars, planets and life are more or less finely tuned for the "physical parameters of the universe". Who knows what the universe would've looked like if certain parameters had been different? The universe does not exist to sustain life. It simply exists. There are vast expanses in space where there is no life and where probably life will never get. Does that mean that space should not exist? The universe will probably still exist billions of years after all life will have faded away. Do you think the universe will be weeping when all life has vanished?
I always find it funny when people talk about the universe being perfectly fine tuned for life
when we only know of one tiny planet that has life on it, in a universe made up almost entirely
of cold, radiation infused, vacuum. Even this planet isn't perfectly tuned for life, and has in fact
had a good go at wiping it out on a number of occasions.
We evolved to suite our environment, it wasn't tuned to be nice for us.
And the fact that we can do a much better job of building nice environments for humans than
nature can or does is proof of the fact that this planet is by no means perfect for us.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy guess is this is partly because theists find themselves to be very important. "Certainly, there must be a creator, because my life must have a higher meaning."
I always find it funny when people talk about the universe being perfectly fine tuned for life
when we only know of one tiny planet that has life on it, in a universe made up almost entirely
of cold, radiation infused, vacuum. Even this planet isn't perfectly tuned for life, and has in fact
had a good go at wiping it out on a number of occasions.
...[text shortened]... s than
nature can or does is proof of the fact that this planet is by no means perfect for us.[/b]
The idea that most of them will be utterly forgotten in about 100-150 years is apparantly too shocking to accept.
Which is ironic, because it is the theist that often rambles on and on about being humble and insignificant. Let he who is without sin blablabla...
Originally posted by Great King RatTwo infidels in one thread. How interesting.
My guess is this is partly because theists find themselves to be very important. "Certainly, there must be a creator, because my life must have a higher meaning."
The idea that most of them will be utterly forgotten in about 100-150 years is apparantly too shocking to accept.
Which is ironic, because it is the theist that often rambles on and on about being humble and insignificant. Let he who is without sin blablabla...
Unlike one who earlier thought that he or she would not worship God if He was found to exist, that person assumes that he already understands all about God in the person's present state. But if the person actually came to believe in God and understand God from God's perspective, who is to stay God does not deserve worship. Perhaps I might even be able to say, that the creator of us deserves whatever He asks.
One difference about Christ is that Christ "bought Christians with a price," so not only did God create Christians, Christ purchased them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KingOnPointWrong. Please don't assume you know what other people are thinking.
Unlike one who earlier thought that he or she would not worship God if He was found to exist, that person assumes that he already understands all about God in the person's present state. But if the person actually came to believe in God and understand God from God's perspective, who is to stay God does not deserve worship. Perhaps I might even be able ...[text shortened]... "bought Christians with a price," so not only did God create Christians, Christ purchased them.
It's rude and a really bad habit.
Don't assume, ask them.
And I don't care what 'god's nature is'. [not that non-existent beings have a nature]
No being worthy of being worshipped [and this assumes that worship is not inherently
something to be avoided regardless] would ever ask to be worshipped, let alone require
it.
Thus any being that asks for, or requires, worship cannot be worthy of it.
EDIT: also, I am not a Christian. So even if that drivel were true, it wouldn't apply
to me.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBeing an atheist since birth requires only two things. One is believing we are all born without belief that God exists, the other is never having experienced belief in God (or gods).
Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]Why would you want to ask those questions of an atheist? They have
nothing to do with atheism.
> The following curious statement by googlefudge became the overarching reason for presenting these questions:
Originally posted by googlefudge
The world wasn't created.
No I never wondered ...[text shortened]... "Not relevant to atheism"? Did genetic predisposition play a role? Some scientific explanation?
"Free will is illusory" makes perfect sense to me. You may disagree, but to do that, the statement has to make sense to you.
FW as a concept that affects our relation with deity and how the deity will treat us is not relevant to atheism. FW as a concept in law, such as whether a person was psychologically brainwashed or traumatized into doing something illegal, is relevant to atheists and theists alike because they may find themselves involved in such a legal matter, but that doesn't make it relevant to atheism.