Ask the Atheist

[PLP]

Zachary:

See, the problem with this thread…

I personally don’t see any problems with this thread.

…is that, since you started it, the burden of proof lies on you.

I’m not trying to prove anything, so I have no burden of proof. I’m just trying to have a conversation.

You’ve said to ask you any question, implying you’d provide an answer or at least try for one.

As far as I know, I’ve answered every question sincerely, honestly, and to the best of my ability.

But, mostly you are saying that you have no proof something exists so it cannot.

Where did I say that?

You never said “here is the proof it does not exist.” Put your arrogance aside, we’ve heard plenty about how well read you are and how many diverse religious and atheist people you know, again, implying you know answers.

Do you have a question?

So give some are drop the thread.

You’re under no obligation to continue reading the thread. I’ll stop posting here when people stop asking me questions.

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

I’m, sorry, let me add to that. I’ve read a lot of the questions and answers and I’ve gotten the impression that you are trying 1 of 2 things. Either you practicing online so that when you come face-to-face with someone you will be prepared to tell them an atheist answer OR you are looking for answers yourself and hiding behind your thread name. If it is #2, I suggest some insight into 1 Peter 1:7.

I’m trying neither of those things. I’m trying (and, in my opinion, succeeding) in having an intellectual conversation with some smart, well-informed people.

Otherwise, don’t waste you time.

I don’t believe that I am wasting my time. If you believe you are wasing yours, you’re under no obligation to continue participating.

 

[Toni]

marvin:

Well let me be the first to say thanks for gracing us with your presence o mighty atheist. If I think of a question that you will not deem beneath your level of expertise, I’ll be sure to ask.

Once again thanks for taking the time to set us all straight!

:clapping: Oh and by the way on judgement day I would like to be in line behind you…

 

[Mijoy2]

PLP:

I’m not an historian. I’ve read a few things here and there, but I mostly rely on the opinions of scholars. Wikipedia has some interesting articles on The Jewish and Christian Bibles.

I’ve seen no evidence hold up which would suggest any sort of paranormal origin of the Bible.

Might I be so forward as to suggest you reconsider this view? You wouldn’t be here, I suspect, if you weren’t looking for soma answers (even though you seem to prejudge the answers you have).

Investigate such things as messianic and non-messianic prophecy, the role of the Jews over the past 3-4000 years and the odds of thier existance being coincidece, and certainly typology as it pertains to the entirety of the bible old->new. Consider this in light that there was no single author. That there were many whose lives do not overlap therefore making the likelyhood of some sort of conspiracy to begin and finish a story over time greatly unlikely. If it were not for these things, my faith would be seriously threatened.

I wish some more scholarly then myself (which isn’t tough to top) would pipe in on this point.

 

[PLP]

Mijoy2:

Might I be so forward as to suggest you reconsider this view? You wouldn’t be here, I suspect, if you weren’t looking for soma answers (even though you seem to prejudge the answers you have).

I’ve done enough research to satisfy myself that it’s implausible there’s anything supernatural going on. I know a bit more than that, but I’m hardly enough of an expert to hold forth on the subject in detail.

 

[Mijoy2]

PLP:

I’ve done enough research to satisfy myself that it’s implausible there’s anything supernatural going on. I know a bit more than that, but I’m hardly enough of an expert to hold forth on the subject in detail.

PLP, you are short changing yourself and undermining the potential.

I hold nothing but the utmost respect for your opinion and have hope for your reconsideration.

Don’t respond PLP (if you so chose not to) but God exists. He must, or your world as well as mine is without any meaning. If you have children, look into thier eyes and ask yourself if thier existence is temporal. Anything temporal is without meaning.

God Bless you PLP and thank you for your charitable contribution to this forum.

 

[kristinma]

Just for fun let’s consider the evolution of atheists as a species.

Are atheists an endangered species?

Consider the evidence.

Firstly, evolution made a mistake. We are not genetically programmed to want babies. Instead, we are programmed to want sex!

For most of our history that was a distinction without a difference. Sex and babies went together like Episcopalians and Hellman’s mayonnaise. The second usually followed the first.

Today, of course, it is a different. We’re having more sex and fewer babies per person. Birthrates – expressed as average lifetime number of babies per woman – are falling across the world.

That brings me to the next point. What makes some people believers and others not? In the world of the atheist, where there is no God, no Holy Spirit and no Jesus, it can only be nature or nurture or a combination of the two.

Let’s assume there is at least some genetic component to this. That some people are genetically disposed to become “religious.” Perhaps they have more (or fewer) serotonin receptors in their brains. Maybe they’re lacking in GABA or some other neurotransmitter. Or maybe they’ve got too much of some other brain chemical. Whatever it is, it predisposes them to believe in a Big Daddy in the Sky.

Now comes the interesting bit. There is some evidence that, on average, believers have more babies than atheists.

You see where this is going? If believers are having proportionately more babies than atheists, then “believer genes” will form a progressively increasing portion of the human gene pool. Over succeeding generations there will be an ever greater proportion of the population that carries “believer genes” and a decreasing proportion that carries “atheist genes” until one day…

Well, are atheists an endangered species?

If this is true is it an argument for, or against, intelligent design?

God bless,

Kristin

 

[PLP]

Mijoy2:

PLP, you are short changing yourself and undermining the potential.

I hold nothing but the utmost respect for your opinion and have hope for your reconsideration.

Thanks for the kind words!

Don’t respond PLP (if you so chose not to) but God exists. He must, or your world as well as mine is without any meaning. If you have children, look into thier eyes and ask yourself if thier existence is temporal. Anything temporal is without meaning.

I disagree: I think the temporal does have meaning. I think meaning is what we ourselves bring to the universe. I don’t think I’ll live forever, in any way, but I’m alive now and my life has meaning now.

God Bless you PLP and thank you for your charitable contribution to this forum.

I’m very much enjoying myself! I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself as well. I’m hoping this thread is proving equally rewarding for our readers.

 

[PLP]

kristinma:

Just for fun let’s consider the evolution of atheists as a species.

You make an interesting argument. You may be absolutely correct that, over a long period of time, whatever it is cognitively that promotes atheism might in fact evolve out of our brains. In fact, there’s as yet insufficient evidence that human intelligence itself has any long-term evolutionary survival value.

On the other hand, human society and human belief has been changing many orders of magnitude faster than biological, genetic evolution can account for.

In evolutionary terms, we’re in a period right now of very little selective pressure, both biologically and socially. Almost any genetic variant of human can survive today (because of vastly improved medical science) and because of Western liberalism, almost any social ideology can get a foothold in some sub-population.

This can’t go on forever. There will soon be some sort of bottleneck, and some societies will be selected for and some against.

It’s not just a matter of more babies, either; if it were, in biological evolution, there would be nothing but insects. And even socially and ideologically, if it’s just a matter of having more babies, the Muslims have quite the edge on the Christians. But again, I don’t think that just numbers of babies is the determining factor.

The one trait that has caused more disproportionate economic success in human civilization is natural science. And atheists have the advantage of being more-or-less thoroughly dedicated to this trait. Almost all theistic religions, on the other hand, at some point balk at the use of some science. So even though atheist numbers might be low, we might better preserve this important trait. Evolution is full of examples where the preservation of some trait is more important than just raw numbers of offspring.

Furthermore, there are a number of religious believers (mostly non-Catholic, AFAIK) who seem to be aching for the Rapture and subsequent Armageddon. If such people get their hands on the United States’ or Russia’s nuclear arsenal, bye bye planet Earth.

With all good luck, we will colonize space soon. If we do, there’s going to be very strong selective pressure in that environment for careful, realistic thinking 24/7. Even if religion makes it into space, I suspect it will become very different.

Well, are atheists an endangered species?

If this is true is it an argument for, or against, intelligent design?

I don’t think that even selective pressure against atheism would be evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent designer desiring theistic belief would simply implement such belief at a more basic level. It would just be evidence that a certain mode of thinking had survival value, and (in my opinion) would argue against the theory that thinking has survival value in proportion to its realism.

Only time will tell. Biological evolution works on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and even social evolution works on scales of multiple generations. You and I (at least in our present bodily forms) won’t be around to see the results.

 

[Hilde_Mari]

Hi!

I was just wondering if you are the kind of atheist who believes there is no God, or the kind that just lack faith in Him?Using the scientific method; the first kind of atheist believes that the hypothesis “There is a God” is false, while the agnostic says it can’t be proven false, nor true. Or du you just lack faith? Since you are here, I guess you are at least open to the idea

one more thing. How do you explain that I feel good when somebody else does something good for another person. Because that can’t be explained by me unburdening my conscience by i.e giving money to charity.

Do you believe in altruism? or at least that selfless acts are done?

And happy new year.

NB:sorry if I have asked a question that already have been answered.

 

[Zachary]

It’s your book, not mine.

So why you trying interpret our book for us? Tie your shoes before you go running on ice.

Do you believe in ghosts? If so, what are they?

How do you explain infinity? The universe has no beginning, even according to science. If time was the begining, what did it come from?

 

[PLP]

Hilde_Mari:

I was just wondering if you are the kind of atheist who believes there is no God, or the kind that just lack faith in Him?

I’m what’s commonly termed a “strong” atheist: I have a definite belief that no god exists. Of course, given that the concept of “god” is very broad, there are some unknowable senses of the term. Towards those particular senses, I’m a weak atheist: I lack any particular belief. But overall, there are many senses which are meaningful and knowable, and my evaluation of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that no meaningful, knowable god exists.

It’s important to note that I’m not “mathematically certain” there is no god; indeed I’m not mathematically certain about anything other than the theorems of mathematics. My belief is predicated on the evidence that I’ve directly or indirectly observed. It’s always logically possible that new evidence, or a new interpretation of existing evidence, could change my mind.

Since you are here, I guess you are at least open to the idea

I’m open to any idea. I will consider any idea on its rational merits.

How do you explain that I feel good when somebody else does something good for another person.

We appear to have evolved from social beings, and we have evolved all sorts of neural structures for empathizing with other human beings. Social cooperation has material benefits and selective advantages even in non-sapient animals (all the way down to insects and even bacteria) so it’s unsurprising to see that we ourselves have retained this behavior.

That we can override our social empathy (all too easily, sadly) is evidence that our empathy does not operate supernaturally.

Do you believe in altruism? or at least that selfless acts are done?

I don’t know, really, what a “selfless” act is. All of our actions proceed from motivations from the “self”, and all of our actions operate to satisfy those internal motivations. Even if the reward in pleasure at another’s gratification, all of our actions result from these internal motivations.

I view altruism precisely in that light: That an altruistic act is not “selfless” but rather one that proceeds from a particular kind of motivation: pleasure in the happiness of another person. While not “selfless” in the absolute philosophical (and incoherent) sense, I very much approve of altruism. (Especially when someone else takes pleasure in my own happiness .)

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

So why you trying interpret our book for us? Tie your shoes before you go running on ice.

Someone (you perhaps? I’m too lazy to go back and look) mentioned the Ten Commandments as an excellent moral guide. If you can interpret away the literal meaning of the text, it is very much unclear to me whether the text itself or common sense and natural knowledge is authoritative.

Do you believe in ghosts? If so, what are they?

No. They appear to be nothing more than figments of some people’s imagination.

How do you explain infinity?

Outside of mathematics, I don’t even try.

The universe has no beginning, even according to science. If time was the begining, what did it come from?

See my earlier posts on the first cause argument. Logically *everything *that exists (even if that everything includes a god) cannot have a cause, cannot “*come *to be”, it must “just be”.

 

[Zachary]

PLP:

…and my evaluation of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that no meaningful, knowable god exists.

What is your evidence? Don’t go all politcal and avoid a direct answer, please. The Canadian elections are already enough.

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

What is your evidence? Don’t go all politcal and avoid a direct answer, please.

Sure. The strongest evidence appears to be that everything we observe, from the quantum to the astrophysical, can be explained by relatively simple, mechanical natural laws proceeding from relatively simple initial conditions.

Every report of paranormal activity (activity inconsistent with the known laws of physics) that I’ve investigated in any detail has proven to be coincidence, ignorance of natural law, overactive imagination or outright fraud. The only exceptions are new phenomena discovered by actual scientists which have invariably led to the preservation of the mechanical (non-intelligent) nature of natural law.

These meta-observations lead me inescapably to the conclusion that no interventionist god exists. It’s possible that a purely deistic god exists, but I can’t conceive of any reason why such a god would create this particular universe.

 

[Zachary]

PLP:

Someone (you perhaps? I’m too lazy to go back and look) mentioned the Ten Commandments as an excellent moral guide. If you can interpret away the literal meaning of the text, it is very much unclear to me whether the text itself or common sense and natural knowledge is authoritative.

Wasn’t me. Ever think that common sense was derived from some place, eh?

PLP:

Outside of mathematics, I don’t even try.

Ok, outside math, infinity is …

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

Wasn’t me. Ever think that common sense was derived from some place, eh?

Evolution.

Ok, outside math, infinity is …

Incomprehensible?

 

[Zachary]

PLP:

Sure. The strongest evidence appears to be that everything we observe, from the quantum to the astrophysical, can be explained by relatively simple, mechanical natural laws proceeding from relatively simple initial conditions.

Every report of paranormal activity (activity inconsistent with the known laws of physics) that I’ve investigated in any detail has proven to be coincidence, ignorance of natural law, overactive imagination or outright fraud. The only exceptions are new phenomena discovered by actual scientists which have invariably led to the preservation of the mechanical (non-intelligent) nature of natural law.

These meta-observations lead me inescapably to the conclusion that no interventionist god exists. It’s possible that a purely deistic god exists, but I can’t conceive of any reason why such a god would create this particular universe.

See, that’s your problem. You lack faith because you need to understand why God would do what he has done. But you don’t need to understand. You need faith. I’m sure you don’t understand everything you believe or know to be true.

Sounds to me like you believe in God as possible but improbable. That’s more that you claim, but you don’t contradict yourself as many times as you have without hiding something.

 

[Zachary]

PLP:

Evolution.

Evolution doesn’t disprove God

PLP:

Incomprehensible?

That’s right. But you believe in it.

Anyway, what does PLP stand for?
Who’s your favourite baseball team?

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

See, that’s your problem. You lack faith…

I do indeed lack faith (in the religious sense). I don’t see it as a problem.

I’m sure you don’t understand everything you believe or know to be true.

Actually, I definitely do think I understand everything I believe to be true. I don’t see how I could have any belief, true or false, about something I don’t understand.

Sounds to me like you believe in God as possible but improbable.

I usually use the word implausible instead of improbable, but yes, that’s basically it.

That’s more that you claim, but you don’t contradict yourself as many times as you have without hiding something.

I’m not trying to hide anything. And I don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself.