Main Reason For Atheism

[cheddarsox]

TTM:

Is that not what the atheists believe? That given enough time, intelligent life would form from the non-intelligent universe’s tendency toward order? It does come down to pure chance then, does it not?

God bless,
TTM

It is not a tendency toward order, it is the fact that there are very real and specific ways that matter behaves. There is nothing chancey about it, you put certain things into certain situations and things will happen in certain ways.

Is it chance that when you follow a recipe for cake, you get cake rather than pie? No, of course not.

The fact that we don’t have the recipe book, and don’t fully understand the complex interactions, does not mean that they are “chance”. The more we do study the universe, the more we realize we don’t understand, but it is pretty clear that it is not a random place.

Some theists name the order god, atheists do not, but I haven’t come across many who deny the order.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Is it chance that when you follow a recipe for cake, you get cake rather than pie? No, of course not.

The fact that we don’t have the recipe book, and don’t fully understand the complex interactions, does not mean that they are “chance”. The more we do study the universe, the more we realize we don’t understand, but it is pretty clear that it is not a random place.

cheddar

Yes, evolutionists attribute the theoretical changes over time to more than just random changes…the changes they say, were the result of other things (environmental conditions, self preservation, etc, etc). But it seems to insist there was no purpose to it. That is why many creationists call it “chance”. A better word, in my opinion, is “un-guided” changes.

In response to your cake analogy:

A person might be very suprised if an earthquake ocurred which shook the house and dumped whatever ingredients were in the kitchen all together in a pile on the floor…and a cake resulted.

-or-

A person might also be surprised if he came across a recipe that was not written by someone.

 

[TTM]

cheddarsox:

Some theists name the order god, atheists do not, but I haven’t come across many who deny the order.

For Christians, this order is an evidence pointing to a creator. An atheist would have to say that this order is there without purpose; a chance occurence at the point of Big Bang (when laws of physics came into existence). So, yes, “un-guided” is a good word, but so is “chance”, I think.

God bless,
TTM

 

[Monarchy]

pseudoanselm:

But, your thinking is linear. Do you think eternal reward is compatable with a loving God? If so, then isn’t the flipside to eternal reward, in fact, eternal punishment?

Who says it has to have a flip side? Why not just plain and simple non-existance?

Now, if you believe that, then you MUST believe that Hitler and Mother Theresa are sitting side by side rubbing shoulders right now? Is that what you believe? Is that what you believe to be a “loving God”?

Considering most denominations believe (I don’t know if catholics do) that all Hitler would have to do is repent his sins to God and believe, He would then be rubbing sholders with Mother Theresa

And, what if punishment after death is temporary? Is that compatible with a “loving God”? What’s the flipside to temporary punishment? Wouldn’t it be temporary reward?

Again, who says there has to be a flip side?

Finally, if you think death is the end, how is that “loving”? Is your atheistic mechanistic universe “loving”? Was Mao Tse Deung, the atheist dictator, “loving”.

I don’t claim them to be. Christians claim god to be loving.

So, if you’re going to heap scorn on the Christian concept of God as not “loving”, then wouldn’t it be just as fair for Christians, for said reasons, to dump on your world view as equally unloving?

No because I don’t go around claiming atheism is loving! Christians claim God loves you! When you claim something be prepared for someone to show the flaws in your claim.

 

[TTM]

Monarchy:

Who says it has to have a flip side? Why not just plain and simple non-existance?

I think this is a good point, and many Christians struggle with it also. I would recommend reading J. P. Moreland’s take on this in “The Case for Faith” (again) by Lee Strobel.

God bless!
TTM

 

[Chris_W]

Monarchy:

Who says it has to have a flip side? Why not just plain and simple non-existance?

A Christian man I knew had a father who was an atheist. On his death bed, his father said “I’m afraid”.

A natural reaction when facing death I suppose. But it begs the question, “why?”. Why would an atheist fear death? If there was no purpose to existence, then non-existence (as you suggest) shouldn’t give a second thought. Particles merely came together for a time and then they cease to be as they were.

Surely there is a natural instinct toward physical survival, but why would an atheist fear death (and subsequent non-existence)?

I believe it is because death is contrary to our nature. We have a reaction against it because we were designed for eternal life. Just like we have a reaction against cruelty and injustince only because there is something in us that tells us we ought to be kind and just.

And so the thought of death causes fear, saying “this isn’t right”. The idea of non-existence causes even more anxiety.

We will all die, but none of us will cease to exist.

 

[cheddarsox]

I have known Christians who were afraid as death neared, and atheists who were not.

It is not unusual to fear death, as it is an unknown. Even for people of faith, they don’t know what it will be like, and coming face to face with the divine can be more than a little intimidating.

I have also seen atheists face death without fear, some with peace and great acceptance.

cheddar

 

[Monarchy]

Chris W:

A Christian man I knew had a father who was an atheist. On his death bed, his father said “I’m afraid”.

A natural reaction when facing death I suppose. But it begs the question, “why?”. Why would an atheist fear death? If there was no purpose to existence, then non-existence (as you suggest) shouldn’t give a second thought. Particles merely came together for a time and then they cease to be as they were.

I am living now, it would be a natural thing to want to go on living, but I won’t. People are often afraid of things they don’t understand.

Surely there is a natural instinct toward physical survival, but why would an atheist fear death (and subsequent non-existence)?

I like my life and wish to continue enjoying it?

I believe it is because death is contrary to our nature. We have a reaction against it because we were designed for eternal life. Just like we have a reaction against cruelty and injustince only because there is something in us that tells us we ought to be kind and just.

Well, thats your belief. I would say it’s because they would like to continue living. Why are Christians afraid at death if they are facing eternal life?

And so the thought of death causes fear, saying “this isn’t right”. The idea of non-existence causes even more anxiety.

See above. I wasn’t concious of an existance before I was born, So I’ll be returning to that state after death.

We will all die, but none of us will cease to exist.

Again, thats your belief.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

I have known Christians who were afraid as death neared, and atheists who were not.

It is not unusual to fear death, as it is an unknown. Even for people of faith, they don’t know what it will be like, and coming face to face with the divine can be more than a little intimidating.

I have also seen atheists face death without fear, some with peace and great acceptance.

cheddar

Agreed. But it is the ones who fear death that I am talking about. I can see no reason for the fear. To say it is fear of the unknown is to not give an answer. Fear of the unknown in any circumstance, only exists because one can forsee (fear) certain imaginable consequences. I am merely saying that the fear exists about life after death or the lack of it, because we are aware of life after death…it is part of our nature to consider it…because we were designed that way.

 

[Chris_W]

Monarchy:

I am living now, it would be a natural thing to want to go on living, but I won’t.

…I like my life and wish to continue enjoying it?

You say it is a natural thing, but then you describe what sounds like much more than merely a biological instinct for survival of the species.

Any animal has a survival instinct. That instinct can be attributed to his physical nature. Can your enjoyment of life and desires be attributed to your biological nature? If so, how?

Monarchy:

Again, thats your belief.

Agreed. That’s why I said “I believe…” But see, I am of the understanding there is more than one nature to a human being. A physical nature, and a spiritual or divine nature (an eternal soul).

I would think an atheist can only acknowledge the physical nature. I do not understand how the fears and desires and enjoyment fo life can be attributed to physical nature.

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

I do not understand how the fears and desires and enjoyment fo life can be attributed to physical nature.

Have you ever had a dog?

I’m serious here, and this in not a comment on what atheists believe or do not believe. I’m just scratching my head over the statement of your that I quoted above.

Now, maybe you believe that dogs, and many other animals have a spiritual nature as well as a physical nature, I do not know, but they clearly have fears, desires, and enjoyment of life, and sometimes a fear of death.

I have spent a great deal of time around many kinds of animals, and many experience these things. I have also seen animals go to their deaths peacefully, fear of death does not seem to be universal to all, nor limited to only animals, or only humans.

Is this just a conceptual arguement for you? or have you spent time actually observing life around you and talking to people of different belief systems about these subjects?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

Hey Cheddar,

Yes, it is a bit of a conceptual argument I suppose (my apologies for my inefficiencies). My point remains, though perhaps needing a little clarification. The following excerpt is a paraphrase from a book I read, though I cannot tell you which one

Some animals appear to love and/or have feelings. I do not dispute that (they appear to). However, the ordinary individual knows that he is very different from other mere animals. The earliest evidences of man show drawings in caves. No other animal does that. No other being on earth wears clothes because they do not experience shame or the need to cover certain parts of the body, or to make themselves look better. No other animals write letters or read books. Only humans tell jokes, or find humor in incongruity. Only human beings experience boredom (cows only look that way). There is something about human beings that transcends the limits of space and time. It is called spirit, or soul. Nothing in particular satisfies us; not power, nor prestige, nor pleasure, nor sex, nor drugs, nor money. We have a mind that yearns for everything.

Nothing else on earth is like mankind. And it is this that I am talking about. I felt Monarchy’s comment about wanting to enjoy life a little longer was a point worth exploring because we humans are unique. You say (as others have in the past) that other animals seem to display emotions. Fine. I agree they appear to.

But we all know mankind is very different don’t we? So I am curious to what atheists might attribute this thing about humans that for lack of a better term is called spirit or soul (sense of self, or whatever you want to call it).

It is that spirit which I believe enables Monarchy to want to enjoy life, that causes many to fear death, that causes us to “yearn for everything”, that enables us to create and admire works of beauty, that thing which separates man from the beasts.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Now, maybe you believe that dogs, and many other animals have a spiritual nature as well as a physical nature, I do not know, but they clearly have fears, desires, and enjoyment of life, and sometimes a fear of death.

I have spent a great deal of time around many kinds of animals, and many experience these things. I have also seen animals go to their deaths peacefully, fear of death does not seem to be universal to all, nor limited to only animals, or only humans.

Considering what you said a little longer, and considering how much time you have spent around many different kinds of animals, I am wondering if you could describe for me how you know a dog or any other animal for that matter would indicate that they fear death. I’m not talking about cowering before being beaten or shot or something…that would be a reaction to obvious danger. Nor am I talking about a dog who refuses to get in the car, somehow sensing that he’s headed to the vet to be put down. We know animals have many heightened senses (can sense fear, etc). These would not indicate a fear of dying. Rather they are instinctual reactions to what is sensed (danger, etc).

But a man who goes in for a byopsy knowing the potential exists he has cancer, and fearing the emminence of death, is an entirely different thing. So I am curious how you would discern that a dog with a brain tumor for example, would be experiencing fear of death or non-existence.

I’m just scratching my head over your statement.

But maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Now, maybe you believe that dogs, and many other animals have a spiritual nature as well as a physical nature, I do not know, but they clearly have fears, desires, and enjoyment of life, and sometimes a fear of death.

Sorry, but I keep thinking about what you said and I am equally curious how you would discern that an animal has desires. Obviously a dog will salivate at the sight of food, and if he smells another dog in heat may react in a powerful way. He may wag a tail at a friendly person, etc. But what makes you think they have desires? Do they long to see their old home? Do they just wish for a pretty sunset? Do they think fondly about younger days?

I can’t even observe another human being, much less an animal, and conclude necessarily that they have desires. I can guess based on facial expressions or mannerisms, but that is me projecting my assumptions. I do know that people have desires, but that’s only because I have them too, and I can discuss with others about it.

How could you know that “they clearly have…desires”?

 

[cheddarsox]

I can explain why/how I know these things I have observed in animals, but because we have very different beliefs about some other fundamental things, I doubt my explanations would satisfy you. Because, like most things, there is no 100% way I can guarentee that what I have concluded, from my observations, is ultimate reality.

So there is some faith, and some of what one believes about the nature of things that comes into play.

From your paraphrase of the book excerpt, I discern that you believe humans to be very much in a class by themselves, and once I believed that too. It was what I grew up believing, but the more time I spent working with animals, the more I saw that there appeared to be very few things that set us apart.

There are many animals that do not behave in ways that I would interpret as joy, fear, etc. Snakes, frogs, salamanders. I have never seen one exhibit “emotion”, they do appear to act out of instinct. Even their pain and fleeing response does not appear to be accompanied by any complex fear emotion.

On the other hand, they are not without individual traits either. They have varying temperments, some of my snakes and frogs resist handling, others are OK with it. This could be simply chemical, I don’t pretend to know.

But clearly, when you get to the level of birds, at least some species, and to mammals, it has been eeiry for me to observe how essentially alike we are in behavior and motivations.

Clearly mammals can get bored. Ever see a panther in a zoo, or an elephant pacing or rocking mindlessly? Or other repetitive motions that are recognizable signs of boredom. Clearly they have desire. I have an 8 1/2 yr old rabbit that hobbles out of her pen in the evening to “dance” in the twilight. She anxiously waits at the door of her pen to get out. Her pen is 10 ft by 10 ft. She isn’t cramped for room. She desires to get out and spend time free in a rabbits favorite time of day. Some combination of instinct and learned behavior, and some part desire. I have other rabbits who have never lived free, and danced in the twilight, and they show no desire for that which they do not know.

I could go on and on.

Ultimately, I do not know what or if there is any one clear thing that seperates humans from the other animals. I really do not.

I have never seen an animal kneel and pray, but that is not the only way to act out a connection to a spiritual reality beyond what we see. Sometimes, when in my yard, watching the rabbits stretch in the sun, the chickens taking a dust bath, the frogs chuckling in the pond and the dogs stretching with a smile on their face, we all seem to be communing, honoring and accepting the gifts of the divine in our own way. I sense a holy moment of commonality among us. We are all given the gift of being able to recognize and utilize the day the divine has provided for us, in the manner in which we are capable.

As far as no animals wearing clothes. Most have adaquate body coverings, those that dont certainly do find or create body coverings, hermit crabs, damsel fly larvae, a number of insect larvae.

I expect our different philosophies will cause us to interpret all these observations in different ways.

I think that most humans do have a level of “awareness” that is beyond that of most animals. Whether this is “the soul”, I do not know. It may be the function of a more developed cerebral cortex, I do not know. I don’t think a dog can comprehend what a brain tumor is, but there are other injuries and illness, the seriousness of which they seem to grasp and respond to.

Most humans would not understand they had a brain tumor without being diagnosed, etc. But they would still respond to the pain and eventually the dibilitation, until their awareness was affected, much the same as any other animal.

I have known people with brain tumors, who lived for years with changed personality, various neurological abnormalities, etc, unaware of the cause, and not afraid. They only became afraid when the doctor told them the diagnosis. I have seen animals suffer much dibilitation before seeming to recognize (at what level, I do not pretend to know) the terminal nature of their malady, and then either fighting or giving in to the course of things.

cheddar

 

[TTM]

cheddarsox:

Ultimately, I do not know what or if there is any one clear thing that seperates humans from the other animals. I really do not.

I think the difference is our moral conscience, rationality and freewill. Otherwise, you may agree with Dr. Kinsey (yes, the one in the movie) that sex is a purely “animal” responce, and that it’s OK to be unfaithful in marriage, or to be a prostitute, and it’s OK for humans to have sex with farm animals (here is an article which debunks his research, by the way).

God bless!
TTM

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

I expect our different philosophies will cause us to interpret all these observations in different ways.

Fair enough. We would disagree on interpretaion of observations. However, as Tim pointed out, humans are distinctively different in that we have a moral consience, the ability to reason, and free will (the ability to decide between conflicting instincts). We could argue about the emotions or reactions that some animals* seem* to share with mankind. But there are no other animals who read, write, have a sense of humor, feel shame, create art, have self esteem, etc.

I have heard the theory that perhaps Humans have a higher developed brain or other such answer. But does this answer the question? Why haven’t any other creatures developed these abilities?

I have not heard that question answered beyond “well, I guess we cannot know…we just evolved that way”. But if evolution is not “chance”, as evolutionists so emphatically state, then what caused the evolution of reason, free will, and conscience?

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

But if evolution is not “chance”, as evolutionists so emphatically state, then what caused the evolution of reason, free will, and conscience?

Not to go off on a tangent, but I am married to an evolutionary biologist, and I know many others. And I have never heard any of them explain evolution as chance.

It is a very complex system.

Scientists cannot use “god” as an explanation for things. And most of us, when we go to the doctor are glad that the doctor does not merely say. “God” made you ill, have a nice day."

Instead we appreciate that doctors take the time to figure out HOW we got ill, and whether or not ultimately the cause is god we usually prefer the doctor to find the “middle man” and deal with it.

Same with evolution. Perhaps god is ultimately behind it all, but studying the way evolution operates and the “middle men” of factors involved is still useful and purposeful.

Chance involves random purposelessness, no scientist worth their title looks at the universe or any part of it and sees it as random. If they did, there would be absolutely no point in studying it. It is the fact that we know there are patterns that makes us want to find out what is behind the patterns.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Not to go off on a tangent, but I am married to an evolutionary biologist, and I know many others. And I have never heard any of them explain evolution as chance.

It is a very complex system.

Scientists cannot use “god” as an explanation for things. And most of us, when we go to the doctor are glad that the doctor does not merely say. “God” made you ill, have a nice day."

Instead we appreciate that doctors take the time to figure out HOW we got ill, and whether or not ultimately the cause is god we usually prefer the doctor to find the “middle man” and deal with it.

Same with evolution. Perhaps god is ultimately behind it all, but studying the way evolution operates and the “middle men” of factors involved is still useful and purposeful.

Chance involves random purposelessness, no scientist worth their title looks at the universe or any part of it and sees it as random. If they did, there would be absolutely no point in studying it. It is the fact that we know there are patterns that makes us want to find out what is behind the patterns.

cheddar

I’m not saying evolution is chance. I said if it is NOT chance, as I am aware evolutionists say it is not, then what caused the human species to evolve such that we have reason, free will and conscience?

I see three possibilities:

1. Chance - of course this is not what an evolutionist would suggest because the understanding of evolution is that the changes are not random chance but rather unguided changes resulting from environment and the like. This would be an answer like “I don’t know how it happened, but is wasn’t God”
2. Evolution as it is understood by evolutionists - that we evolved due to certain scientific perhaps even observable reasons. This answer requires an explanation in my opinion and that is what I am requesting of you.
3. Our ability to reason, our free will, and our conscience are not the result of biological evolution. This is the belief of thieists like myself.

I hope this helps to clarify: I am not suggesting evolution is merely chance. All I’m saying is that if someone is going to presume these things are the result of evolution as evolutionists explain evolution (and NOT just chance), then please explain how and why they evolved.

 

[john_doran]

cheddarsox:

Not to go off on a tangent, but I am married to an evolutionary biologist, and I know many others. And I have never heard any of them explain evolution as chance.

excuse me, but i have never heard of neo-darwinian evolution being described as anything other than the combination of random mutation and natural selection.

perhaps it is the use of the word “chance” that is being mutually misunderstood…for sure, once there ***is ***a (heritable) mutation to some base pair or pairs in an organism’s DNA, then the organism will proceed to develop acording to (fairly) well understood biological laws and processes.

but the occurrence of the mutations themseves are random, at least in any scientific vernacular with which i am familiar.

but let me ask you a question: if evolution does not essentially include a random mechanism, then how does the development proceed?

cheddarsox:

Chance involves random purposelessness, no scientist worth their title looks at the universe or any part of it and sees it as random.

you should talk to the quantum mechanics set - they might not take so kindly to being told they’re not worthy scientists…