Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Why do some atheists talk/focus on God/religion more than most religious people do???

Some atheists are zealots.

Would you like a cookie for being an atheist?

Did you bake some? Are they good?

Is there proudness in your non-belief?

None. I do have much sadness at being misunderstood though.

Is this a competition on who is right and who is wrong?

Not to me. I hope this thread doesn't turn that way.

Why do some atheists look down on other atheists for not "unbelieving" to the extreme?

Some atheists are zealots

Originally posted by dominicus
I really have only one question to ask. Have you examined every possible possibility before you chose the belief system of Atheism?

Atheism is not a belief system. I searched for evidence of many religious claims and found none.

I mean, you have to admit to the fact that being an atheist is relative to what you believe to be true. Its all based on a relativism and therefore inconclusive.

Religious and metaphysical claims are unsupported by evidence and there is no reason to "believe" in any of it.

Philosophically speaking, it would make batter sense for you to hold no stance (not even atheism) as a final and lasting choice versus something that is relative.

What exactly is relative about forming a certitude based on the lack of evidence for religious claims?

No. Non-belief is not a belief.

Whatever floats your boat, dude. And we all know how handy a boat can be when you're in dah Nile.

Taking a position that goblins and fairies do not exist is not a belief either. It's a certitude formed on the lack of evidence.

There is no evidence that there is or is not a largest prime pair, either. So, applying your fantasy "principle of inference:"

(A) There being no evidence that there is no largest prime pair, you are certain that there is.

or is it

(B) There being no evidence that there is a largest parime pair, you are certain that there is not.

Answer: In the absence of evidence, you are literally clueless.

Some people admit it when they haven't got a clue, and other people pretend they know the answers anyway. That must be very satisfying.

It does kind of defeat the point of asking you further questions, though.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Answer this:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

There are many things unknown to science. You cannot, however, use this lack of knowledge to make the assumption that all codes are created by conscious minds and therefore DNA was created by a mind. Such a claim has not been supported by any evidence you've presented, only your conjecture.

We do know of many ways in which nature forms orderly systems. In fact, all orderly systems throughout the universe that are not sourced to human activity were the result of natural processes. It would be quite remarkable indeed then that this particular molecule you've singled out amongst all the others was specifically designed by "a mind" rather than through nature's typical process of keeping hat works and discarding what doesn't. I won't rule out that it wasn't but it will take a lot more to convince people of this than your "if, then, therefore" reasoning process.

Originally posted by Allred5923
For me it means "There is no Omnipotent creator or deities."

Me too. Which is why I now use the term Spiritual Humanist - to avoid confusion.

Geeze - - I don't see anything in the OP's post - - about debating beliefs. Was there some kind of challenge in there I missed?

All I read was a polite - I'll answer your question on Atheism.

There is so much order in the universe and design which seems to suggest a creator, especially in light of the second law of thermodynamics. The human mind is great at seeing design. No one on this planet upon finding a computer sitting in the middle of the street would say it was created by accident. Consider the intricacies of something as simple as a housefly, not to mention the human brain.

Does the consideration of the order, complexity, and beauty in your reality ever give you pause when the overwhelming evidence of a designer stares you in the face?

Originally posted by slane69
So according to your beliefs, those cultures who killed, tortured, and sometimes ate their enemies were doing good as long as they saw it as such? Arguably from an ecological standpoint the Polynesian tribes who practiced cannibalism were making use of scarce resources and behaving in a good manner, from a certain point of view but was it moral? Without a higher moral authority potentially all is acceptable and good. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks for the opportunity to ask questions.

If there were a "higher moral authority" why then would there even be cannibals? Presumably we'd all share the same moral set since we'd be deriving our morals from the same source. But it appears we don't.

We set up arbitrary systems of morals based upon cultural standards and operate accordingly. For the most part though, individuals within a given culture usually operate with a moral subset that benefits the group as a whole. It is, as you've referenced, when we encounter enemies, i.e., those from other groups or cultures, that the moral edicts begin to change and murder, torture and cannibalism can be found acceptable.

reply to post by slane69


The human brain is the perfect example of evolution. Within its layers you can find a timeline of all that came before us. From a typical reptilian brain in the hindbrain right up to mammal brains in the forebrain. The only thing that really sets us apart from our close ancestors is a larger prefrontal cortex.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


[quoteOriginally posted by OutKast Searcher
Why do some atheists talk/focus on God/religion more than most religious people do???

Some atheists are zealots.

Howdy traditionaldrummer, was wanting to add something that also occurred to me about my particular situation for journeying over to the atheistic side of thinking.
For lack of a better explanation, such as it happens when one becomes religious in one form or another, I had an epiphany to who I actually was.
I hold not a god or a human being accountable for my lifes endeavours, I can only be a good homosapien by way of my existence on Earth.
Didn't need the collection tray or a fire and brimstone sermon to wake me to the reality of what is right for me.
By way of a group of the same ideals, it allows one to become more apt to digress as other thing's being factual in life, the other's other than my religious cronies are nothing more than "Lost Souls" for lack of the explanation, and that is exactly what I watched unfold in front of me through the years, it left a bad taste in my mouth saying I believed in God and Jesus Christ was my savior, though at times when I was younger those accusation's somewhat enlightened me euphorically, the truth of the matter was I was just kidding myself in the end.
as for the Zealot definition, I personally think there are more Religious Zealots than Atheistic one's, but I do know they are out there with their say by way of other thing's than a pulpit or congregation.
Just wanted to get that out there.
S&F...

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I have a question.

considering what we do/don't know about the universe, do you consider human beings an adaptation of the universe? more precisely, do you consider human beings of the same essence of the eagle nebula?

If so, do you consider human being's ability to understand this an accident (by chance of natural selective processes) Or do you think the eagle nebula has a form of intelligence (order)

If not on the latter, where does intelligence come from? and if it is random, how can there be objectivity?

We are connected to the universe in that we're composed of the same atomic building blocks that are present throughout the universe.

I don't suspect that nebulae share intelligence akin to that of humans, although in nature there are processes which appear to us to be intelligent. Presumably the same processes which lead to what we call intelligence here on earth is likely present throughout the universe.

Originally posted by eight bits
Answer: In the absence of evidence, you are literally clueless.

Some people admit it when they haven't got a clue, and other people pretend they know the answers anyway. That must be very satisfying.

It does kind of defeat the point of asking you further questions, though.

Thanks for your comments and questions.

Have a great day.

Originally posted by slane69
Does the consideration of the order, complexity, and beauty in your reality ever give you pause when the overwhelming evidence of a designer stares you in the face?

I stand in much awe when observing the universe. I find absolutely nothing to indicate any kind of "creator" though. Assuming there was a creator indicates a top-down creation scheme. However, everything in the universe appears arranged by a bottom-up natural process.

And it is notable that there is no evidence anywhere of this all-powerful and invisible "creator". Humans believe there to be a creator because we create things. Belief in such things is simply humans anthropomorphising the universe

I'd just like to point out that "morality" has been observed in animals such as monkeys, which suggests that it is an entirely naturally evolved concept.

Look at this video for example: www.youtube.com...

Two monkeys are separated by glass, with just a small hole in the glass. On one monkey's side of the glass is a small rock, on the other monkey's side is a sealed container with nuts in it. The monkeys soon realise that they need to work as a team to get the nuts, so one monkey passes the rock through the small gap for the other monkey to use to cut open the seal. You might expect the other monkey to eat all the nuts for himself (there is nothing stopping him doing this, the other monkey cannot reach him). Yet, the monkey shares the nuts with his friend, which was the fair and "moral" thing to do, considering they had worked as a team to get the nuts.

Did God bestow this kind of morality on these monkeys? Or is it naturally evolved? I know what my money is on.

If there were a "higher moral authority" why then would there even be cannibals? Presumably we'd all share the same moral set since we'd be deriving our morals from the same source. But it appears we don't.

As your presumption is part of your belief system I accept your answer,... from your perspective it is valid. But your freedom of belief, i.e. choice of atheism, hints at why individuals can decide morality external of any higher authority. To use your parlance, the source can be blocked. Freedom of choice is not evidence against a higher moral authority.

It is, as you've referenced, when we encounter enemies, i.e., those from other groups or cultures, that the moral edicts begin to change and murder, torture and cannibalism can be found acceptable.

Agreed.

reply to post by hippomchippo

By asking ridiculous questions that are meant to ridicule.
Do you want a cookie? Seriously?
Grow up...

Well it was a ridiculous request...to ask an atheist a question like that is some sort of unique honor bestowed on us.

So I asked ridiculous questions...and some serious ones. And he responded in a humorous and serious way. Only one that seems to have a problem with it is you.

I stand in much awe when observing the universe. I find absolutely nothing to indicate any kind of "creator" though. Assuming there was a creator indicates a top-down creation scheme. However, everything in the universe appears arranged by a bottom-up natural process.

I also believe in a bottom up creation scheme, humans also create in this manner. I see no disconnect between a bottom up scheme and a creator. I can see why you would make your assumption though as many "creationists" are not versed in genetics or evolutionary biology. To their discredit many fail to explore that which does not coincide with their worldview.

And it is notable that there is no evidence anywhere of this all-powerful and invisible "creator". Humans believe there to be a creator because we create things. Belief in such things is simply humans anthropomorphising the universe

I have to respectfully disagree, I would argue it is all around you but you do not see it.

Thank you for your time, it has been good.

reply to post by Annee


I know the Op has done good with this thread, and myself being an atheist and knowing that there are those out there that think we are some how inferior or unintelligent in some way or another, I just wanted to postulate on the ideal timing for this thread being created.
Religion's are a hard swallow for me on discussion, usually turns into a free for all with really bad slurs and rebuttal's, and all I ever wanted to get across to the people that think that way about our choices of being Atheist was understanding, the understanding I know there are true believer's of faith's and religion's, just don't have to give anyone a tongue lashing on where we are going to end up if we don't convert "TODAY!!" lol

No misintention intended, just want to let people know we are all human, and in the end, we can all act civil and courteous to one another. I enjoy telling or explaining my current status of how I perceive religion's, I just don't wish too be degraded or ridiculed for my personal precept ion's of who I am.

If it is all right with the OP of this thread, I think I would qualify for the explanation's of any inquiries as to who, what and whys we are no different by way of intellectual correspondences of question's and answer's.

And thanks for keeping me on my toes Annee, without your inquiry, I would have not realised I was incorrectly explaining myself...

Originally posted by slane69
As your presumption is part of your belief system I accept your answer,... from your perspective it is valid. But your freedom of belief, i.e. choice of atheism, hints at why individuals can decide morality external of any higher authority. To use your parlance, the source can be blocked. Freedom of choice is not evidence against a higher moral authority.

I am not offering any evidence against "higher moral authority". However, there appears to be no evidence OF a "higher moral authority". There appears to be much evidence though that morality is derived by social contract through interaction between members of a species. I am open to the idea of such a "higher moral authority" though should supporting evidence be provided.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by slane69

 

The human brain is the perfect example of evolution. Within its layers you can find a timeline of all that came before us. From a typical reptilian brain in the hindbrain right up to mammal brains in the forebrain. The only thing that really sets us apart from our close ancestors is a larger prefrontal cortex.

Agreed, you mistakenly assume I do not believe in evolution.

Originally posted by slane69

And it is notable that there is no evidence anywhere of this all-powerful and invisible "creator". Humans believe there to be a creator because we create things. Belief in such things is simply humans anthropomorphising the universe

I have to respectfully disagree, I would argue it is all around you but you do not see it.

Thank you for your time, it has been good.

That is correct. I do not see things which are unsupported by evidence in any way. We could argue, as you say, but exchanging opinions on unsupported issues is exchanging beliefs. I have no interest in that as it goes nowhere. "Seeing creators" is, as I had said, is humans anthropomorphising the universe. I am, however, open to evidence to the contrary should it be presented.