Questions for Atheist

[Willamena]

I'm still trying to figure out what the questions have to do with atheism. Maybe the OP could explain? I'm also curious... why atheists to begin with? What's the interest there?

Well, all atheists are scientists. Didn't you know?

 

[anonymous9887]

I'm still trying to figure out what the questions have to do with atheism. Maybe the OP could explain? I'm also curious... why atheists to begin with? What's the interest there?

I want to get to know more about this position. I ask these questions, because these are some difficulties Atheist have to deal with. I am taking a look at both sides of the coin so to speak. I like to hear from people that make a decision based on research and knowledge then Just wanting to be one with no knowledge.

 

[anonymous9887]

Back to the OP...

Scientists are comfortable saying "I don't (yet), know" when asked difficult questions. Many religious folks appear to be uncomfortable not knowing answers to important questions, and many religions claim to have answers. I think saying "I don't know" is better than pretending to know.

A big part of science is about learning enough about things so that you can make reliably accurate predictions. Often scientists don't have formal proofs, but they have mountains of evidence that support their theories. This very internet, upon which we are communicating, is built using some scientific theories that don't have perfect proofs, but that have reliable and consistent data.

That's the whole point of this thread though. Many Atheist have answered the questions at ease. I'm looking to understand their perspective, some people are okay not knowing, but others have done research in depth on the difficult questions.

 

[anonymous9887]

Well, all atheists are scientists. Didn't you know?

That's cool so you just chose a position.

 

[Willamena]

When I look at a burrito, I see design and a mind behind it's creation. Some people create really bad ones, some people really good ones. In any case, I see it took certain ingredients and a certain method to accomplish the creation of a burrito. Compare a galaxy to a burrito. My burrito wasn't created by a bunch of ingredients on account of a big bang in the kitchen. Who created the ingredients? It took the mind of man to come up with the technology to make something from natural resources as simple and tasty as a burrito. So if a burrito is man made, then what makes you think a galaxy, all of which are similar in design, just like my burrito, was a mindless accidentally made as sophisticated as they are?

Man is a drop in the ocean. The ocean makes waves. Consciousness is man's wave.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is the purpose of life?

You're probably going to attack this, but I believe that the purpose of life is to do well by your body, do right by your "self" - live long enough to propagate your line and do what it takes to produce a lineage. It sounds mechanical and cold, perhaps, but it isn't, of course. Within that are all the wonders of being alive. And remember that sometimes doing right by your own self includes doing right by others. It's the nature of the game.

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

I believe that they have simply always been. There was never a time that matter didn't exist. I also believe that "The Big Bang" is only a single event in a series. A great revolution of mater and energies that takes trillions of years to come back around to the next "Big Bang".

What was before the big bang?

In my opinion, another "Big Bang" - and an entirely different scattering of the matter throughout the universe. Then much of it collected and coalesced again and exploded outward into "our" "Big Bang".

If matter has always been there what caused them to react?

The laws of this universe are the immutable, "sacred" layer of goings on. They provide for the matter within the universe to seek better, more stable relationships. That is simply among the immutable laws. These laws do not require explanation - much like you probably believe your "God" does not require explanation.

Can matter produce information?

Since we are all made up of matter, and "information" is a concept we introduced to call the items we can discover about the world around us, then yes, I would say that matter can produce information.

How did consciousness come from matter?

From my point of view it developed over time and over a ridiculously long string of generations to come out on top as a significantly advantageous means by which an organism can pass along vital survival knowledge and mechanical know-how by way of instincts. You would agree that your body is not much more than a mass of cohesive, living, singular cells, would you not? Those individual cells (all together) actually do much more to keep your body going than "you" do. And why do they work for you? The answer is, they don't. "You" - that is, your consciousness - works for THEM. While there are obviously exceptions, the vast majority of human minds are geared toward the purpose of keeping the mass of cells that is "the body" out of harm's way. That's your (the consciousness') job.

What happens when we die?

We lose the ability to maintain the electrical signals that transmit data and commands between the various structures and cells within our bodies.

Outside of radiometric dating what other methods prove millions of years?

Observable planetary interactions would indicate that it is not possible for the Earth and the other solar-orbiting bodies to have come into their present state of stable orbits, and near-spherical shapes within a relatively short period of time. It just doesn't happen that quickly. The "churning" of the Earth - the process by which it became a sphere over eons of core-content being forced to the surface and then settling again - simply does not happen within a few thousand years.

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today?

Dinosaurs. In other words... no.

Can Life come from something that is not alive?

I honestly believe this is likely. Consider the movement of the universe in every manner of way that matter interacts with matter CONSTANTLY. Chemical reactions going about their business ALL THE TIME, without a single finger lifted to start them. Celestial bodies moving and crashing, bringing those elements together that are all looking for those more stable configurations. On the smallest scales possible, we can't always be there with our microscopes and magnifying glasses to see just what is going on. Perhaps the processes by which the "chemical" becomes the "biological" are so very minute at the start and so, SO RARE that there is absolutely no way we're going to "be there" to see or experience it. However - we're talking about ETERNITY, literally, in which these elements and compounds have to interact and intermingle. If it can ever happen, then given eternal amounts of time, it was BOUND to happen.

What test can be ran to prove evolution?

For what you're really asking, the only thing we can do is wait. None of us, individually, have the time on this Earth to actually witness an evolution like the one you're expecting. And only relatively recently has anyone truly been paying attention and documenting the state of species in the world today. We've got a long way to go before we see any higher-order creatures "become" something else over time. However, the evolution of bacterial and viral strains is something that happens on a much quicker scale. And in our lifetimes we have seen bacteria that becomes more resistant to our antibiotics, that become heartier and able to live in rougher conditions. This IS evolution. You just won't accept it as evidence because you demand to see a monkey become a man.

Do all living things have genetic information? If so, would not new information be required for the process of evolution to take place?

They all have genetic information that is different as part of the best-case survival process. When two individuals produce offspring, there is an element of change introduced by the differences in their genetic information that produces minute mutations. No new information is required. Just different information among members.

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past?

Just as we are all born with physical differences among us, and can be predisposed to certain things of a physical nature (people who gain weight more easily versus people whose metabolism naturally keeps them trim even when they eat as poorly as some overweight people), we can also be born with predispositions toward greater intelligence or mental acumen. Humans certainly run the spectrum in this regard - from people with mental handicaps all the way to those that we term "genius". Why is it any surprise that some people simply think differently, and that those people can be born at any time? I can tell you this... humans are no longer evolving EXCEPT in terms of our knowledge-base. We aren't "getting smarter" in any way - we are simply able to borrow from our ancestors more and more as the methods of recording and analyzing data become more and more efficient and readily available. However, just as in any species, the co-mingling of genetic code in a given reproductive process may certainly produce an organism with a greater capacity for "thinking" - a genius, if you will. And again - there is nothing hindering (or helping) this happen during any specific time-frame throughout our history or posterity.

 

[Underhill]

I would think a lot of these are obvious.

What is the purpose of life? There isn't one. Life exist because it can. We can add purpose but there is no innate purpose.

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there? Nothing is created, they just change form. But the question is a bit silly as we can't really know. Not really a problem for atheist as we are content with not knowing everything.

What was before the big bang theory? Before the theory? I am no historian. A lot of things I imagine.

If matter has always been there what caused them to react? Other matter.

Can matter produce information? Sure, we see it all the time.

How did consciousness come from matter? No clue. But then how did God become conscious?

What happens when we die? Not much. I tend to focus on what happens before I die.

Outside of radiometric dating what other methods prove millions of years? Geology. Astronomy. Virtually everything we look at points to the world being millions of years old.

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today? Of course not.

Can Life come from something that is not alive? Yep.

What test can be ran to prove evolution? They can. The problem is by their nature they take a great deal of time. They have sped up the process or are trying to, but even if you speed it up by many multiples, it could take many centuries to see the kinds of 'evidence' creationist demand.

Do all living things have genetic information? Yes. At least every living thing we have seen so far. If so, would not new information be required for the process of evolution to take place? New, different, less... all of these mutations could lead to an evolutionary change.

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past? Where do you get the premise that it requires gaining knowledge? If idiots were better able to cope for some reason, we could see exactly the opposite. But keep in mind, evolution takes tens of thousands, usually hundreds of thousands, of years. The notion that Einstein, or even Alexander the Great, is evidence of us getting less intelligent is absurd. We haven't really seen a sea change in humanity in a long time.

 

[Quintessence]

In some respects it makes sense to me. many theist believe they have an answer for questions on purpose or creation of life.

Atheists are the most readily identifiable group that disagrees.

I wouldnt read more into it than that, although atheists and theists alike sometimes conflate atheism and science, which is...well...I find it strange.

So do I (among other odd conflations), hence the question. I wish more folks would recognize that enjoying or following a particular mythology or story about how the world works is an issue independent of (a)theism. Personally, I wouldn't assume that an atheist doesn't follow some sort of purpose/creation mythos, nor that a theist does.

I want to get to know more about this position. I ask these questions, because these are some difficulties Atheist have to deal with. I am taking a look at both sides of the coin so to speak. I like to hear from people that make a decision based on research and knowledge then Just wanting to be one with no knowledge.

Hmm. It sounds like you really mean to ask these questions of anyone who reaches their conclusions about the nature of reality though their own exploration of the world? As in "for those of you who don't accept some dogmatic religious teaching as truth" sort of thing? Guess I'm trying to figure out if I'm an "atheist" with respect to your intentions with the questions.

 

[Windwalker]

What is the purpose of life?

This is not a question for science, so the scientific method does not apply. It is a philosophical question. That said however, one can look at the facts we have in hand and let them inform our ideas of meaning and purpose. But those facts don't dictate them. There are multiple ways to look at and understand the same factual data. Truth and facts are related, but not identical in this way.

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

Atoms did not create the big bang. Atoms were created by the big bang. Do a little more reading on the topic here.

What was before the big bang theory?

Before the Big Bang Theory was the Steady-State Universe theory. Evidence from the data changed how we understand the origin of the universe. We now see it had a beginning.

How did consciousness come from matter?

I don't believe it does. But it depends how someone is defining consciousness. Many assume a cognitive self-awareness is the definition of consciousness. If that is the definition, then it is an emergent feature of higher material structures, such as the triune brain in humans. I don't care for that understanding as it doesn't go far enough. I gravitate towards panpsychism myself, and cognitive self-awareness is simply one aspect of consciousness itself.

What happens when we die?

Again, this is not a question for science, at this point anyway.

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today?

I'm not aware of any scientific theories that do. Everything I've ever learned speaks about changes to the earth over its history. Do you have some information I'm not aware of?

Can Life come from something that is not alive?

Everything is alive. Just in different states of existence, different forms. Organic life, biological life, is a form of that life. Atoms are not dead. They are active. Everything is active, including things like rocks once you enter inside them. They're fully of activity inside.

Now to the question of what is life? That itself is question for philosophy.

What test can be ran to prove evolution?

Oh dear! There's countless information out there available for you to read up on. The real question is what test can you offer to disprove it? What test can you offer that unseats all the evidence we have for it? Please point to it.

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past?

We can see the evolution of intelligence in form throughout humankind's existence. How our brains hold and process information today has, and is continuing to evolve. Again, I think things like "intelligence" are more than logic processes. I see it as the backdrop of all reality itself, and our form of that intelligence is unique to our form.

The big problem for many theists like yourself is that they project their human intelligence on God, anthropomorphizing God to look like us. Hence the myth that we are "made in his image" is taken to me he thinks and reasons like us! That's a good story to provoke our thoughts, but it's hardly reflective of the bigger picture.

 

[anonymous9887]

So do I (among other odd conflations), hence the question. I wish more folks would recognize that enjoying or following a particular mythology or story about how the world works is an issue independent of (a)theism. Personally, I wouldn't assume that an atheist doesn't follow some sort of purpose/creation mythos, nor that a theist does.



Hmm. It sounds like you really mean to ask these questions of anyone who reaches their conclusions about the nature of reality though their own exploration of the world? As in "for those of you who don't accept some dogmatic religious teaching as truth" sort of thing? Guess I'm trying to figure out if I'm an "atheist" with respect to your intentions with the questions.

Here is the deal:
1. I like to see other people's view point on what reasonings they are using to choose their position.
2. No matter what anyone says each position has some difficulties they have to answer in regards to their position, I say embrace the Idea of trying to answer the questions instead of avoiding them.
3. I am not really interested in people who just chose a position with no knowledge, but I will definitely listen to them.
4. I am a listening ear to this position at this point, so I can make my decision on atheism.
5. I believe in god obviously, and obviously even people have objections here in believing in a god. I would have to say I am here to take a look at the difficulties and the way people respond to the difficulties.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So do I (among other odd conflations), hence the question. I wish more folks would recognize that enjoying or following a particular mythology or story about how the world works is an issue independent of (a)theism. Personally, I wouldn't assume that an atheist doesn't follow some sort of purpose/creation mythos, nor that a theist does.



Hmm. It sounds like you really mean to ask these questions of anyone who reaches their conclusions about the nature of reality though their own exploration of the world? As in "for those of you who don't accept some dogmatic religious teaching as truth" sort of thing? Guess I'm trying to figure out if I'm an "atheist" with respect to your intentions with the questions.

*hands Quintessence a contract*

There ya go. One contract to sign up as an honorary atheist for this thread only. Just ignore the part about losing your eternal soul. We'll hand it back after this thread closes. Promise.

 

[Milton Platt]

If you are believe in a higher power feel free to add more questions to the thread. I want to hear what an atheist has to say on these questions. Can your prove your theories with the scientific method. please explain

Scientific method

- Ask a question

- Do research

- Construct a hypothesis

- Test with an experiment

- Analyze data and draw conclusions

- Communicate results


What is the purpose of life?

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

What was before the big bang theory?

If matter has always been there what caused them to react?

Can matter produce information?

How did consciousness come from matter?

What happens when we die?

Outside of radiometric dating what other methods prove millions of years?

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today?

Can Life come from something that is not alive?

What test can be ran to prove evolution?

Do all living things have genetic information? If so, would not new information be required for the process of evolution to take place?

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past?

Atheism is the rejection of the god claim. None of the questions have anything to do with atheism, but rather with scientific theories. Which do you want to discuss?

 

[james bond]

Evolution doesn't suggest people will get 'smarter' or 'better' as time persists. Why do you think it does?

I agree. Evolution causes people to get "dumber" and "worse" as time goes on. Anything based on mutation has this effect.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree. Evolution causes people to get "dumber" and "worse" as time goes on. Anything based on mutation has this effect.

Mutation is only 1 of multiple drivers of evolutionary change, and is probably the least of them.

Whilst many mutations are harmful, others are not inpactful (eg. eye colour) and even more rarely convey circumstantial benefit.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Evolution causes people to get "dumber" and "worse" as time goes on.

If you're only talking about people, then sure. We're seeing this because we've spent so many years advancing medicine and healthcare, and achieving longer life expectancies among weaker sections of our gene pool, which in turn produces progressively weaker generations of offspring.

Unfortunately, for your position, it actually supports Evolutionary Theory. So....

Anything based on mutation has this effect.

This is false. You believe this because you misunderstand mutations, their function in organisms and in populations, and their prominence as an evolutionary driver.

 

[james bond]

Mutation is only 1 of multiple drivers of evolutionary change, and is probably the least of them.

Whilst many mutations are harmful, others are not inpactful (eg. eye colour) and even more rarely convey circumstantial benefit.

Well, natural selection is accepted by Christians as it was discovered by Christian Alfred Russel Wallace. The part they do not accept are macroevolution or mutations under Darwin. Macroevolution cannot happen and you just admitted as much. Mutation may be the least of them (none probably), but it does not stop the evos from genetic modification. I would say eye color is natural selection, not mutation.

 

[james bond]

If you're only talking about people, then sure. We're seeing this because we've spent so many years advancing medicine and healthcare, and achieving longer life expectancies among weaker sections of our gene pool, which in turn produces progressively weaker generations of offspring.

Unfortunately, for your position, it actually supports Evolutionary Theory. So....


This is false. You believe this because you misunderstand mutations, their function in organisms and in populations, and their prominence as an evolutionary driver.

Last point first. Is it really important to my position? I would think that atheists are wrong again about ET.

If you agree that people are getting weaker generations, then what do you propose to do about it? Mine would be education (assuming public education). If it includes Christianity (private school), then we can learn that Christianity teaches us to live longer and have stronger offspring.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, natural selection is accepted by Christians as it was discovered by Christian Alfred Russel Wallace. The part they do not accept are macroevolution or mutations under Darwin.

Darwin was a theist too, you know. Anyway...to your point, I don't think you get to speak for 'Christians' any more than I get to speak for atheists. I know many Christians who accept evolution.

And why the heck do you think mutation is required for whatever the heck 'macro-evolution' is?

Macroevolution cannot happen and you just admitted as much.

I would suggest sticking to putting words in your own mouth, and leaving mine alone. If you want to play this ridiculous game of misinterpretation for your own purposes, though, please quote me directly.

Mutation may be the least of them (none probably), but it does not stop the evos from genetic modification.

Sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I would say eye color is natural selection, not mutation.

Adam and Eve did a super job creating green, blue, hazel, brown, grey, etc

For your consideration:

http://www.xovain.com/how-to/7-beautiful-mutations-which-ones-do-you-have

 

[james bond]

Darwin was a theist too, you know. Anyway...to your point, I don't think you get to speak for 'Christians' any more than I get to speak for atheists. I know many Christians who accept evolution.

And why the heck do you think mutation is required for whatever the heck 'macro-evolution' is?



I would suggest sticking to putting words in your own mouth, and leaving mine alone. If you want to play this ridiculous game of misinterpretation for your own purposes, though, please quote me directly.



Sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.



Adam and Eve did a super job creating green, blue, hazel, brown, grey, etc

For your consideration:

http://www.xovain.com/how-to/7-beautiful-mutations-which-ones-do-you-have

Yes, but you're missing the forest but the trees. Darwin was a theist who was influenced by his mentor Charles Lyell and disavowed his Christianity.

Easy enough to google.

I'm talking to you and not someone else. Can only interpret what you are saying.

It's a lengthy explanation. Maybe a topic for another day.

404 error. Many atheist scientists will tell you eye color is natural selection.

 

[Animore]

If you are believe in a higher power feel free to add more questions to the thread. I want to hear what an atheist has to say on these questions. Can your prove your theories with the scientific method

Yes. That is what we base all scientific experimenting on is the use of the scientific method.

What is the purpose of life?

Purpose and meaning are subjective. We create our own meaning.

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

There were no atoms. Atoms only came into existence at around the 380,000 year mark.

What was before the big bang theory?

Great question. We don't know. However, science is the search for knowledge and understanding, and highly educated scientists are working on that question.

If matter has always been there what caused them to react?

Since this is the last question I'm going to direct you towards this website: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

It will most likely provide you with the information you seek.

Can matter produce information?

Nope, it can't. Are you trying to disprove something here?

What happens when we die?

Well, we see no reason to believe in an afterlife. That leaves nothing. That's why we enjoy our lives when we have it.

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today?

No, not really. The atmosphere has changed considerably, the vegetation has changed, etc. so no.

Can Life come from something that is not alive?

Yes, from the current theory that we have life can come from non-life by certain chemical processes.

Outside of radiometric dating what other methods prove millions of years?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

What test can be ran to prove evolution?

Do all living things have genetic information? If so, would not new information be required for the process of evolution to take place?

No, that makes no sense. Evolution occurs through a process called natural selection, and is hereditary. No new information is added. The current information is mutated. It is not instant.

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past?

Could you explain this question better? Evolution is simply defined as "
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." It doesn't require getting better. If you are simply implying natural selection, this is a fallacy. Evolution does not require it. Evolution is simply creatures evolving. Natural selection is how it works.