Can an Atheist Answer These?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoewindow3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shoewindow3000 said:
What I am looking for is the answer to this question:

(Just out of curiosity)

Does an atheist justify the necessity for a living creature to exert *any *energy or effort to exist?

If so, how?
Click to expand...
Why does it need justification?

Consider the following… you start with 100 pennies, and flip them. If they are heads, you keep flipping them, but if they are tails you put them aside. Eventually you have no pennies to flip… why?
 
liquidpele said:
Why does it need justification?

Consider the following… you start with 100 pennies, and flip them. If they are heads, you keep flipping them, but if they are tails you put them aside. Eventually you have no pennies to flip… why?
Click to expand...
If there is no justification, then why do it?
 
eichenb2 said:
However, homosapiens differ from other species, fundamentally. My proof is this thread. Human ask why and distinguish between what is and what ought to be. If our brains are simply a result of many years of successive levels of evolution, why should we trust that there is any coherence to our “science”.
Click to expand...
Because the science gives us practical results.
Also, why should we trust scientific theories that are forming by a consciousness that may not be fully evolved.
Click to expand...
“Fully evolved” is a nonsense phrase.
 
AnAtheist said:
Well, that’s right, but the question is a sophisticated version of “why are blue balls not red?”
Click to expand...
There is a vast difference between balls and living organisms. Balls are purposeless.
As it was already mentioned, the urge to reproduce is a selection advantage in evolution, in other words those lifeforms live “better”.
Click to expand...
Since the urge to survive preceded evolution it cannot be used as an explanation of the urge to survive. In fact there is no mechanistic explanation at all of this urge…
 
shoewindow3000 said:
If there is no justification, then why do it?
Click to expand...
Lets use another coin analogy.

Take a coin, and flip it over and over. If you get 10 heads in a row, you do thing X, otherwise, you continue to not do anything. What do you think will eventually happen?
 
eichenb2 said:
Scientific dogmatism rears its head again. By the way, do you believe in cause and effect?
Click to expand...
Assuming you’re going for the “things can’t create themselves” argument, it’s based on a faulty view of the big bang, assuming that that theory - based on very limited information we’ve gathered thus far - is even correct. Not to mention most conveniently leave God out of the argument to be un-caused.
 
liquidpele said:
Assuming you’re going for the “things can’t create themselves” argument, it’s based on a faulty view of the big bang, assuming that that theory - based on very limited information we’ve gathered thus far - is even correct. Not to mention most conveniently leave God out of the argument to be un-caused.
Click to expand...

A few observations:​

  1. I was not going for any argument. I was simply making light of the philosophical (and scientific) argument that Hume backed himself into. I admit I was not being very charitable. Forgive me, please.
  2. The opposing view to the “Big Bang” is the “Steady State” theory. Most scientists are very skeptical of this theory now. To espouse this thoery is quite rare.
  3. I am not intending to add any specific “God” to the mix. As regards science, I would regard myself more of a Deist. An understanding and belief of the Christian God would require revelation.
 
eichenb2 said:

A few observations:​

  1. I was not going for any argument. I was simply making light of the philosophical (and scientific) argument that Hume backed himself into. I admit I was not being very charitable. Forgive me, please.
  2. The opposing view to the “Big Bang” is the “Steady State” theory. Most scientists are very skeptical of this theory now. To espouse this thoery is quite rare.
  3. I am not intending to add any specific “God” to the mix. As regards science, I would regard myself more of a Deist. An understanding and belief of the Christian God would require revelation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough on #1 and #3, for #2 keep in mind that just because I give you a choice between red and blue doesn’t mean other colors don’t exist.
 
shoewindow3000 said:
1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?
  • For what reason?*
    Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?
In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?
Click to expand...
1). The individuals with the greatest tendency to avoid death are the ones that tend to survive and reproduce.

2). I would think that most species don’t sit down and reason that they want to reproduce. They do it out of instinct.

3). There is no ultimate point, and viruses, as far as we can tell, don’t have desires. They’re purely mechanical.
 
Shredderbeam said:
1). The individuals with the greatest tendency to avoid death are the ones that tend to survive and reproduce.

2). I would think that most species don’t sit down and reason that they want to reproduce. They do it out of instinct.

3). There is no ultimate point, and viruses, as far as we can tell, don’t have desires. They’re purely mechanical.
Click to expand...
  1. Why?
  2. Why?
  3. Why?
Scientific Dogmatism may blind you to the necessity of asking this question. It has not, thankfully, hindered thinkers for the last 5000 or so years. Based on my experience, people implicity seek purpose and so will continue to ask WHY. That is, in my opinion, man’s higher nature. Apologies to primates 😛
 
eichenb2 said:
  1. Why?
  2. Why?
  3. Why?
Scientific Dogmatism may blind you to the necessity of asking this question. It has not, thankfully, hindered thinkers for the last 5000 or so years. Based on my experience, people implicity seek purpose and so will continue to ask WHY. That is, in my opinion, man’s higher nature. Apologies to primates 😛
Click to expand...
The fact that one can ask a question is not a sufficient condition for the existence of an answer to the question. Typically people learn this between the ages of four and eight; perhaps your development has been slow in this regard.
 
DavidHume said:
The fact that one can ask a question is not a sufficient condition for the existence of an answer to the question. Typically people learn this between the ages of four and eight; perhaps your development has been slow in this regard.
Click to expand...
Maybe…

…but what is your point?
 
eichenb2 said:
  1. Why?
  2. Why?
  3. Why?
Scientific Dogmatism may blind you to the necessity of asking this question. It has not, thankfully, hindered thinkers for the last 5000 or so years. Based on my experience, people implicity seek purpose and so will continue to ask WHY. That is, in my opinion, man’s higher nature. Apologies to primates 😛
Click to expand...
1). Usually, individuals that really strive to avoid death will defend themselves better, run away faster, or take more precautions to ensure that they do not die than those who half-heartedly strive to avoid death.

2). Why do they do it out of instinct? Because that is what their instinct compels them to do. If you hear the sound of unexpected gunfire, you will duck your head, and cover your head with your hands, at least partially. Why do you do it? You just do.

3). Why what? I’m not sure what you’re asking.
DavidHume said:
The fact that one can ask a question is not a sufficient condition for the existence of an answer to the question. Typically people learn this between the ages of four and eight; perhaps your development has been slow in this regard.
Click to expand...
Ouch. 😛
 
Shredderbeam said:
1). Usually, individuals that really strive to avoid death will defend themselves better, run away faster, or take more precautions to ensure that they do not die than those who half-heartedly strive to avoid death.

2). Why do they do it out of instinct? Because that is what their instinct compels them to do. If you hear the sound of unexpected gunfire, you will duck your head, and cover your head with your hands, at least partially. Why do you do it? You just do.

3). Why what? I’m not sure what you’re asking.

Ouch. 😛
Click to expand...
I am suggesting that there are answers to these WHY questions. Because one is not aware of a question, does not mean an answer does not exist. People normally realize they between the ages of 3 and 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top