Can an Atheist Answer These?

[Charles_Darwin]

I would call that arrogance.

You and I are no different. We are both human beings, both in the same world. We both have the same emotions, desires, etc.

You mind is not greater than mine, nor is mine greater than yours!

So, from where I am standing, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You just want to lump the true God in with false religions.

Like Richard Dawkins, you imply that Christianity is no better than any other religion.​

(The reason why the hot air condescends to the top is because it is lighter than everything else, if ya catch my drift…don’t be hot air!)

Err no i DON’T believe god does not exist, so there we differ.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you think that because you think you’ve read all the right books, it entitles you to be “cute” in a sarcastic way, and therefore I will just cower down and hide behind my Bible? Give me a break.

Abiogenesis, by itself, cannot explain the origins of human life. It must be taken into the proper context. Abiogenesis cannot occur without the “proper” conditions, and therefore the origin of those conditions must be taken into account, especially if you’re going to have the end result of your argument be that there is or is not a creator.

Moreover, you are completely incorrect when you say that abiogenesis assumes the validity of a “primordial soup.” The soup theory is merely one among many. Are you now beginning to understand why you can’t simply start at abiogenesis as a focused discipline and attempt to answer any big questions like, is there a God?

Well clearly like me you are not a professional scientist. In fact you don’t seem to even understand the basics. Abiogenesis says NOTHING about the conditions (origins of the universe) much like evolution says NOTHING about Abiogenesis.

SO YES when we are explaining a specific set of facts WE do start start at the beginning of the set of facts we seek to explain. I find it ironic that you seem fit to lecture me, instructing me to learn something about the subject, when you don’t even know what a theory (the fundamentals) is.

Also have a even mentioned a creator?

 

[liquidpele]

You overlooked #1. The intangible entity which produces these thoughts is my mind…

Okay, then I’ll be more direct: What specifically makes you think that your mind is not based on the physical? Keep in mind that your church teaches that a soul exists in a zygote before even 1 nerve cell is created, that drugs and alcohol effect the mind, and that you can loose very specific functions of your own consciousness through damaging the physical - and thus your explanation must account for these things and any other evidence and data on the subject.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well clearly like me you are not a professional scientist. In fact you don’t seem to even understand the basics. Abiogenesis says NOTHING about the conditions (origins of the universe) much like evolution says NOTHING about Abiogenesis.

SO YES when we are explaining a specific set of facts WE do start start at the beginning of the set of facts we seek to explain. I find it ironic that you seem fit to lecture me, instructing me to learn something about the subject, when you don’t even know what a theory (the fundamentals) is.

Also have a even mentioned a creator?

First, please do not simply hurl accusations at me about how don’t “understand the basics.” You’re simply wrong about the scope of the study of abiogenesis.

Second, let me explain to you how the conditions necessary for abiogenesis play into the study of abiogenesis. The work being done has much to do with the conditions for spontaneous generation of life. Most of the theories focus on the conditions, as the basic “proof of concept,” if you will, has already been demonstrated. A major part of the theories deal with what the energy sources for abiogenesis might be. Some postulate hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor as an energy source, other theories focus on the presence of radioactive materials on dry land. Still others focus on how abiogenesis might occur in a “primordial soup,” as you’ve mentioned.

Third, I’ve still made no controversial comments about what a “theory” is. I don’t know if you’re getting me confused with someone else, but I’ve not postulated any definition, nor contradicted any accepted definition of what a scientific theory is. Most of the time I see folks wailing about what the definition of a theory is when someone is challenging evolutionary theory and confusing a theory with a hypothesis. I have not done this. So I’m not sure where you’re coming from or aiming at with this “you don’t understand what a theory is” business.

Fourth, although I’ve spent quite a bit of time as an atheist and studying science, and I’ve worked in a research lab with actual samples at a university, you are correct that I am not currently a “professional scientist.” I practice law in two states, and am happily married. I have 2 dogs and 1 cat and zero children. Still, as nothing I’ve said contradicts what any “professional scientists” have concluded about abiogenesis, I fail to see what my background has to do with the matter.

 

[liquidpele]

Fourth, although I’ve spent quite a bit of time as an atheist and studying science…

:ehh: May I ask why you did not believe in God at the time, and what changed your mind?

 

[SonofMonica]

:ehh: May I ask why you did not believe in God at the time, and what changed your mind?

Many, many things converged for me at almost precisely the same time, some of which is anecdotal and wouldn’t mean anything to anyone here. Things that I wouldn’t care for someone insensitive to highly personal anecdotes to insult me about. I hope you’ll respect keeping those things to myself given the nature of this thread.

However, there are some impersonal things that contributed to believing in God. One was my view and understanding about the requirement for a first cause for the existence of the universe changed. Another was my understanding about the perceived conflict between religious morality and science changed. Also, my understanding of the perceived conflict between evolution and theism changed. And my understanding of how I am able to say God regularly intervenes in the world, yet does not rely upon breaking its the laws of say, physics, changed.

As far as why I’m converting to Catholicism specifically, it involves a lot of the personal stuff I mentioned. But it also involves the fact that I agree with all of its moral precepts and I see harmony between those moral precepts and the propagation and flourishing of human life in both a qualitative and quantitative aspect, which comports with my scientific worldview quite nicely. I find its rites and rituals comforting, its teachings challenging yet fulfilling, and its history enriching and compelling in both the positive and negative aspects. I appreciate its development of hospitals, the university system and its major contributions to science. And that just scratches the surface.

Back to the personal stuff though, I will say that sometimes the best test subject to experiment on is yourself, as you’re intimately familiar with the results. And I didn’t like the results of my atheism very much. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[tonyrey]

Okay, then I’ll be more direct: What specifically makes you think that your mind is not based on the physical?

The mind is not based on the physical because it has powers that physical objects do not possess, such as consciousness, creativity and free will.

Keep in mind that your church teaches that a soul exists in a zygote before even 1 nerve cell is created…

I don’t see why or how the origin of the soul is related to this issue.

… that drugs and alcohol affect the mind…

Drugs and alcohol affect the brain - which is simply the instrument used by the mind.

…and that you can lose very specific functions of your own consciousness through damaging the physical - and thus your explanation must account for these things and any other evidence and data on the subject.

Loss of consciousness does not entail the disappearance of the mind. Otherwise an unconscious person would cease to be a person and lose the right to life…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

First, please do not simply hurl accusations at me about how don’t “understand the basics.” You’re simply wrong about the scope of the study of abiogenesis.

Second, let me explain to you how the conditions necessary for abiogenesis play into the study of abiogenesis. The work being done has much to do with the conditions for spontaneous generation of life. Most of the theories focus on the conditions, as the basic “proof of concept,” if you will, has already been demonstrated. A major part of the theories deal with what the energy sources for abiogenesis might be. Some postulate hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor as an energy source, other theories focus on the presence of radioactive materials on dry land. Still others focus on how abiogenesis might occur in a “primordial soup,” as you’ve mentioned.

Third, I’ve still made no controversial comments about what a “theory” is. I don’t know if you’re getting me confused with someone else, but I’ve not postulated any definition, nor contradicted any accepted definition of what a scientific theory is. Most of the time I see folks wailing about what the definition of a theory is when someone is challenging evolutionary theory and confusing a theory with a hypothesis. I have not done this. So I’m not sure where you’re coming from or aiming at with this “you don’t understand what a theory is” business.

Fourth, although I’ve spent quite a bit of time as an atheist and studying science, and I’ve worked in a research lab with actual samples at a university, you are correct that I am not currently a “professional scientist.” I practice law in two states, and am happily married. I have 2 dogs and 1 cat and zero children. Still, as nothing I’ve said contradicts what any “professional scientists” have concluded about abiogenesis, I fail to see what my background has to do with the matter.

Then that explains why (like me) you know certain aspects of the subject. You stated that the origin of the universe must be taken into account in respect to Abiogenesis. This is simply incorrect, much like the origins of the life (Abiogenesis) has no bearing on evolution. Any theory explains a specific set of facts, the origin of the universe is not in the set of facts that Abiogenesis explains. The origin of the universe is utterly irrelevant as far as Abiogenesis is concerned.

Also i think if you look back you will find it was you that started throwing out the accusations and insults. You accuse me of claiming science disproves god (a position i have never held) then you started telling me to “learn something about the subject”. Rather ironic, since you seem to have as equally patchy knowledge on the subject as i do.

 

[Oreoracle]

Loss of consciousness does not entail the disappearance of the mind.

I’ll give you this chance to convince me: How many people have you heard of who have talked about what they were thinking while they were in a coma? Has anyone mentioned the musings they had while they were unconscious in surgery? Heck, it seems like the perfect time to come up with ideas for a book, what with the lack of distractions, like that pesky consciousness.

The funny thing about being unconscious is that no one seems to think while they are unconscious. Isn’t that an odd coincidence? No consciousness = no thoughts. That’s pretty much the same as “no consciousness = no mind,” is it not?

 

[liquidpele]

Many, many things converged for me at almost precisely the same time, some of which is anecdotal and wouldn’t mean anything to anyone here. Things that I wouldn’t care for someone insensitive to highly personal anecdotes to insult me about. I hope you’ll respect keeping those things to myself given the nature of this thread.

However, there are some impersonal things that contributed to believing in God. One was my view and understanding about the requirement for a first cause for the existence of the universe changed. Another was my understanding about the perceived conflict between religious morality and science changed. Also, my understanding of the perceived conflict between evolution and theism changed. And my understanding of how I am able to say God regularly intervenes in the world, yet does not rely upon breaking its the laws of say, physics, changed.

As far as why I’m converting to Catholicism specifically, it involves a lot of the personal stuff I mentioned. But it also involves the fact that I agree with all of its moral precepts and I see harmony between those moral precepts and the propagation and flourishing of human life in both a qualitative and quantitative aspect, which comports with my scientific worldview quite nicely. I find its rites and rituals comforting, its teachings challenging yet fulfilling, and its history enriching and compelling in both the positive and negative aspects. I appreciate its development of hospitals, the university system and its major contributions to science. And that just scratches the surface.

Back to the personal stuff though, I will say that sometimes the best test subject to experiment on is yourself, as you’re intimately familiar with the results. And I didn’t like the results of my atheism very much. I’ll leave it at that.

Well, I must admit that was far more vague than I was hoping for, but thanks for the reply regardless

 

[liquidpele]

The mind is not based on the physical because it has powers that physical objects do not possess, such as consciousness, creativity and free will.
I don’t see why or how the origin of the soul is related to this issue.
Drugs and alcohol affect the brain - which is simply the instrument used by the mind.
Loss of consciousness does not entail the disappearance of the mind. Otherwise an unconscious person would cease to be a person and lose the right to life…

First I’ll touch on the unconscious part. If you’re unconscious, you can still become conscious again. The same cannot be said of death. This is the difference, and it’s a pretty bad comparison for you to bring up imho.

Second, you have stated that your belief is based on the premise that physical objects are incapable of creating consciousness, creativity, and free will. Why do you think that? How much do you actually understand about neurology?

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I think that your logical starting point here is a belief and not substantiated.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well, I must admit that was far more vague than I was hoping for, but thanks for the reply regardless

Thanks for being civil and courteous. If you have any specific questions feel free to send me a PM.

 

[Leela]

You misinterpret Descartes. He simply pointed out that our starting point is the fact that we are thinking. Reality does not begin there nor end there.
All this amounts to a metaphysical view of reality because it gives a** physical **account of the origin of living organisms and societies, taking it for granted that nothing else is involved.
You take it for granted that biological life has been emancipated but you cannot explain how that has occurred. It is certainly unscientific to say the question is unimportant because it falsifies your attitude to reality by giving this world a self-sufficiency it does not possess.
Was it individuals or societies that created ideas?Are you implying that the intellect has found purposes of its own by accident? And that the truth is really important only in relation to its impact on society? Or that the intellect evolved in response to the need to survive? Once again evolution becomes a **metaphysical **theory when it is used to explain the origin and nature of human beings and their powers.
Your metaphysical speculations continue! You obviously regard the self as a product of physical processes and subscribe to neo-Darwinism.
It is ironic you write that soon after an atheist on this forum used Descartes’s argument as evidence that he exists. Whether Descartes would have said that or not does not affect the validity of his argument. Perhaps you would care to disprove it?
What is matter outside of all its properties? Phenomenalism is yet another metaphysical theory! And a very insubstantial one at that!
Can’t you think of yourself without thinking of your body? Are your mind and your thoughts nothing?
Do you really think that **you **are a web of relations of properties? Your family is certainly a web of relations but it is not a web of webs of relations of properties!!! If there is no difference between appearance and reality what you dream is as real what you see when you are awake. If there is no difference between subject and object you are the same as what you observe. If there is no difference between free will and fatalism freedom must be an illusion and people have died fighting for nothing…

I tried to sketch out my broad philosphical position on this thread, and you’ve gone line by line finding something that you can disagree with in just about every sentence. When someone takes that approach to conversation, I can’t tell if the person I’m conversing with can see the forest for the trees. Have you understood my argument at all? Have you tried to or did you just look for points to disagree with? I don’t know where to start in repsonding to you because based on your reply, we have no common ground to even have a conversation. I also can’t tell what your broad argument is. All I know is that you seem to disagree with everything I ever say. Can you explain your position and how you think it relates to mine? Is there anything specific in the above posts that you would like me to repsond to?

Best,
Leela

 

[j1akey]

I started thinking about what free will actually is because of tonrey’s posts here and how it can’t be explained. However I think it can be. When you really think about it “free will” doesn’t seem to be the right term for it. What we consider free will is simply a decision making process that leads to a set of actions based on a set of criteria. Say I consider walking into a bank and robbing it. I weigh the pros and cons and make a decision (free will).

Now, there are devices out there that you can put on your head to control computers because it picks up specific electrical signals from the brain to move or manipulate something on a screen. The technology is still pretty new but it proves that thoughts and decisions generate are simply electrical signals that can then be picked up by a computer and translated into commands.

 

[liquidpele]

I started thinking about what free will actually is because of tonrey’s posts here and how it can’t be explained. However I think it can be. When you really think about it “free will” doesn’t seem to be the right term for it. What we consider free will is simply a decision making process that leads to a set of actions based on a set of criteria. Say I consider walking into a bank and robbing it. I weigh the pros and cons and make a decision (free will).

Now, there are devices out there that you can put on your head to control computers because it picks up specific electrical signals from the brain to move or manipulate something on a screen. The technology is still pretty new but it proves that thoughts and decisions generate are simply electrical signals that can then be picked up by a computer and translated into commands.

One of my psychology classes in college many years ago brought up the really interesting idea that we don’t really have free will, but our brains are just really good at “faking it”. A good analogy is a chat-bot on AIM or something… if it passed the Turing test (meaning you couldn’t differentiate between it and a human) then does it have free will? Why or why not? Anyway, the point is that the psychologists proposed that our minds simply learn to mimic really really well, so all our thoughts are rehearsing and choosing a mimicked behavior (or maybe combining them) and thus all our choices and actions are based off mimicking what we’ve seen. While that’s obviously the elevator pitch and it’s far more complicated than that, it’s really interesting to think about.

A fun video about “free will” is Derran Brown’s video where he subconsciously convinces people to rob a staged armored car.

vimeo.com/1677179

The realness of the video I suppose can be debated, but I think the general fact that we can so easily be manipulated does say loads.

 

[tonyrey]

I tried to sketch out my broad philosophical position on this thread, and you’ve gone line by line finding something that you can disagree with in just about every sentence. When someone takes that approach to conversation, I can’t tell if the person I’m conversing with can see the forest for the trees. Have you understood my argument at all? Have you tried to or did you just look for points to disagree with? I don’t know where to start in responding to you because based on your reply, we have no common ground to even have a conversation. I also can’t tell what your broad argument is. All I know is that you seem to disagree with everything I ever say. Can you explain your position and how you think it relates to mine? Is there anything specific in the above posts that you would like me to respond to?
Best,
Leela

I’m sorry you are upset by my analysis of your argument. You misinterpret my intentions if you think my sole aim is to disagree with you. If I disagree with a statement you have made surely I am entitled to do so if I explain why courteously. I am grateful when some one points out to me where I am mistaken or thought to be mistaken and when questions are fired at me. The purpose of these discussions, in my opinion, is not to win but to clarify our ideas and follow the argument wherever it leads. Our discussions are duels but not duels to the death! Hopefully they are duels that enrich our lives and understanding…

My position is quite simple.

1. I believe it is impossible to avoid making metaphysical assumptions.
2. Physicalism and neoDarwinism are metaphysical theories.
3. I believe physicalism and neoDarwinism are inadequate explanations of reality.
   4.I do not believe a person is a web of relations of properties but a rational, creative being with free will, responsibility, a right to life and a capacity for love that cannot be explained by science because science is restricted to the physical aspect of reality…
4. I believe the most economical, adequate explanation of reality is a rational, loving Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

When you really think about it “free will” doesn’t seem to be the right term for it. What we consider free will is simply a decision making process that leads to a set of actions based on a set of criteria.

In other words it’s not** your** decision at all because it has physical causes… In fact you don’t exist! There is just a body…

Now, there are devices out there that you can put on your head to control computers because it picks up specific electrical signals from the brain to move or manipulate something on a screen. The technology is still pretty new but it proves that thoughts and decisions generate are simply electrical signals that can then be picked up by a computer and translated into commands.

Great discovery! If electrical signals from the brain control muscles why wouldn’t they control a computer? There is one thing you have overlooked. It doesn’t prove thoughts and decisions originate in the brain - simply that they are communicated **via **the brain. Otherwise you are just a very complicated biological robot. How does it feel?

 

[tonyrey]

Anyway, the point is that the psychologists proposed that our minds simply learn to mimic really really well, so all our thoughts are rehearsing and choosing a mimicked behavior (or maybe combining them) and thus all our choices and actions are based off mimicking what we’ve seen.

So we are great apes aping what we’ve seen… That’s great! It let’s off the hook. We’re not responsible for anything we think, say or do. Highly convenient.

The realness of the video I suppose can be debated, but I think the general fact that we can so easily be manipulated does say loads.

It says we are loads of goofs?:manvspc:

 

[j1akey]

tonrey:

In other words it’s not your decision at all because it has physical causes… In fact you don’t exist! There is just a body…

Great discovery! If electrical signals from the brain control muscles why wouldn’t they control a computer? There is one thing you have overlooked. It doesn’t prove thoughts and decisions originate in the brain - simply that they are communicated via the brain. Otherwise you are just a very complicated biological robot. How does it feel?

How does what feel? You know you don’t need to be such a jerk all the time about everything. If you want to have a conversation then fine but just about every post I see you make somehow puts people down or seems like it tries to make them try to feel bad or something.

Either way I’m not brain scientist so I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know all the secrets of the mind that scientists are trying to figure out. I just said like I see it when it comes to the electrical signals.

All I will say is that if I ever come down with some sort of mental illness then I want the guy that’s trying to figure out how the brain works to fix me, not the guy that says it comes from god.

 

[StrawberryJam]

All I will say is that if I ever come down with some sort of mental illness then I want the guy that’s trying to figure out how the brain works to fix me, not the guy that says it comes from god.

And, the odds are the person who will figure it out will not be christian.