Questions for Atheists

[fonso]

Hello.

I don't know if this is the right forum for this message since atheism isn't a religion of any sort, so please feel free to move this post to where it's most appropriate.

I'd like to ask some questions to atheists out of curiousity.

- Does the fact that you do not believe in God, necessarily equate for you that there is no afterlife as well (after life, there is only non-existence)?

- In the absence of a deity who dishes out punishment and rewards the "good", has this, in any way, encouraged you to do any or some things that God-fearing people would not? (i.e. If I can get away with stealing someone's wife or money, it's ok cos I won't be penalized anyway) Please don't think that I think bad of atheists. I'm genuinely curious as to how an atheist thinks.

- Do some atheists who don't believe in God, still believe in a universal system of reward and retribution (like karma?), or does it follow that if you're an atheist, you do not believe in this?

Any other stuff you can tell me about yourself and your beliefs would be very appreciated. Thanks.

[TQWcS]

Chemistry and physics.

The subjects of Chemistry and Physics can not cause anything. That is like saying the study of biology causes evolution. I believe the supposition that matter always has been is just as hard to believe ,if not harder, than God always has been.

[bernee51]

bernee51

1. So do you do what you feel should be done? Or is there some other basis for what you do?

yes, I have a basic morals which guide my actions. I also meditate.

I guess I don't understand why you have morals. Why do you have morals?[/quote]

Call it an evolutionary thing. Without a basic moral background (beginning with the 'golden rule', humankind would not have evolved in the manner which it has.

Do you believe animals have morals - can a chimp, for instance, feel guilty?

2. Do you think there is anything wrong with that? {incest}

yes.

6. Is there a reason for you as an athiest to intellectually conclude that there is no God? Or do you simply believe there is no God?

there is no evidence of the existence of any god.

This is fine if you want to believe it... but not having evidence for something does not disprove its existance.

it makes it rather unlikely - unlikely enought, in the case of JCI god, to be atheistic. As to there being no god whatsover - I am agnostic.

Or do you believe that there is evidence that concludes there is no God? Please explain.

yes there is evidence that there is no JCI god. viz. The argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, the fact of the billions of unanswered prayers (despite your gods assurances, in the book of myth, that they would be.)

8. All events have causes. What caused life? What caused the universe?

what caused god?

Well, my view is that nothing caused God - but that God is the uncaused being that started everything - that the Universe and then life began at a certain point in time, with God.

Will you please answer my question now that I have answered yours? If you do not believe that all events have causes, then please explain that (why).

My view is that the universe is uncaused. if is is uncaused then no 'why' is needed.

10. Do you believe there are no absolutes?

absolutely

Are you just saying this because you think I am trying to trap you? Or do you really believe there are no absolutes? Obviously, as you have shown, believing there are no absolutes is an inherent contridiction of itself[/quote]
an absolute I am taking as something that is immutable for eternity. I do not know whether this is possible or not.

11. Are the laws of logic absolute?

see above., re absolutes., however, for all intents and purposes, yes.

[bernee51]

Please do not percieve my questions to be an attack. I, truly, am also curious. A sincere response would be appreciated. I am not tryint to trap anyone.

1. So do you do what you feel should be done? Or is there some other basis for what you do?

2. What if there is no victim? What if your 18 year old daughter wants to bare your children? Do you think there is anything wrong with that?

3. If you were so inclined, would you proceed with beastiality? If you would not, why?

4. If you were married and there were another wed couple (man and woman, of course) living next door, do you think it would be okay, if all 4 of you consented, that you could trade wives for the night (for sex) and trade back another day?

5. What makes people do things that are bad? (e.g. mass killings)

6. Is there a reason for you as an athiest to intellectually conclude that there is no God? Or do you simply believe there is no God?

7. Do you have a presupposition that miracles cannot occur? If so, what is the basis for this?

8. All events have causes. What caused life? What caused the universe?

9. Do you believe that humans have purpose (in being alive)?

10. Do you believe there are no absolutes?

11. Are the laws of logic absolute?

So do we get to see your own answers to these questions?

Why, indeed did you ask them of atheists specifically?

[chrispalasz]

Sure, I will answer these questions if you want me to. Or if you want to ask specific questions that are different from these that I asked, you can either ask them in the "Ask GreenLight311" (under getting to know people better) or you can post them in the more relevant forum of "Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?"

I asked these questions simply to learn more about Athiests and the reasoning they (you) use when drawing such conclusions. Many people that believe in a god or creator use morality or conciousness or the measurement of good/bad right/wrong as a reason for believing in a god. I was wondering what the reasons were for one that does not believe in a god. Also, some of the questions are directed towards finding out whether or not there is sound logic behind the belief, or whether or not an Athiest is willing to concede that they truly do not know if a god exists, but that they simply believe there is none. So, I hope that clears up that question.

If you want me to answer those questions - let me know and I'll post a response when I have a little more time than I do right now.

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote:

1. So do you do what you feel should be done? Or is there some other basis for what you do?

I have my own views of what is right and what is wrong. These are probably a consequence of a combination of learned and evolved behaviour and I try to take a logical approach. Sometimes I am wrong, sometimes I am right, sometimes I don't know and make a best guess.

2. What if there is no victim? What if your 18 year old daughter wants to bare your children? Do you think there is anything wrong with that?

I don't understand the context here. Incest is not advantageous in terms of genetic diversity. Evolved behaviours tend to control behaviour on this and I am no different from everone else. There would also be victims, the child and my wife.

3. If you were so inclined, would you proceed with beastiality? If you would not, why?

If I fancied a sheep and neither of us would be harmed I see no reason why not. However I don't.

4. If you were married and there were another wed couple (man and woman, of course) living next door, do you think it would be okay, if all 4 of you consented, that you could trade wives for the night (for sex) and trade back another day?

Sounds good to me - we might even go for a foursome. If it's fun do it I say - you only live once.

5. What makes people do things that are bad? (e.g. mass killings)

This is too big to cover in a short reply - the factors that determine human behaviour are multifold and there is unlikely to be a simple answer to why any of us do a specific thing when placed in a particular situation. And, of course, this begs the question of what is bad. Your bad may not be my bad.

6. Is there a reason for you as an athiest to intellectually conclude that there is no God? Or do you simply believe there is no God?

My default is that God does not exist. My reason? I have never seen any objective evidence for his existence.

When considering the existence of something I can only rely on what we know - there have never been any objective measures of a God, no energy, no mass, no observed phenomena, no effects, no theory that would explain this, nothing, zilch a big zero. When something displays no measurable characteristics there is only one explanation - it is does not exist in physical terms.

I have considered the "supernatural" explanation for this but am afraid that this holds no water for two reasons: first it has never been measured in physical terms; second the concept of supernatural is a contradiction in terms - once something occurs it becomes natural and theories need to be amended to take the occurence into account. The supernatural exists in a conceptual sense only - if you disagree prove it in objective terms.

7. Do you have a presupposition that miracles cannot occur? If so, what is the basis for this?

There is no objective evidence that miracles have ever occured or ever could occur. No evidence means no existence.

8. All events have causes. What caused life? What caused the universe?

A definitive explanation of the origin of the universe will never, in my view, be possible. All we can ever do is develop theories based on observed phenomena. We do have a lot of observed and observable phenomena that support the theory that the universe began as a singularity and that there was a big bang - there are, however, a number of other theories. The jury is out on this one at present.

There are, of course, many things that are not yet explained - however a lack of explanation does not mean that we should all suddenly invent a giant wizard and say that he must have created everything.

The creation of life is an interesting one - the concept of a primordial soup does hold some attractions here and the formation of basic proteins that over time became self-replicating is a possibility. More study is needed to clarify the position however the lack of clarity does not mean that the wizard's wand comes back into the equation.

Current theories are not ideal - however when compared with the wizard and his wand they are supported by observable phenomena - Gandalf (god) is not.

9. Do you believe that humans have purpose (in being alive)?

Yes. Humans are here for one purpose only - to replicate the human genome (which is probably the true unit of life in a human sense). I believe that everything else is an aside to this key purpose.

10. Do you believe there are no absolutes?

In what sense? There are absolutes in maths (conceptual of course). You need to put this into context.

11. Are the laws of logic absolute?

Give me the laws and I will comment

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper's follow-up:

Answer #2: I don't understand the context here. Incest is not advantageous in terms of genetic diversity. Evolved behaviours tend to control behaviour on this and I am no different from everone else. There would also be victims, the child and my wife.

How would the child be a victim? Let's say your wife died. Would that change your decision? What does whether or not it's advantagous have anything to do with it? Most human males will have sex with a girl just because she is attractive. How should a daughter that is of age be any different?

This is too big to cover in a short reply - the factors that determine human behaviour are multifold and there is unlikely to be a simple answer to why any of us do a specific thing when placed in a particular situation. And, of course, this begs the question of what is bad. Your bad may not be my bad.

Well then - let's not take "borderline" bad. Let's take the "bad" that pretty much everyone can agree on. If you don't want to exand on why - just go ahead and list some factors that determine human behaviour. You don't have to explain. I'm curious.

My default is that God does not exist. My reason? I have never seen any objective evidence for his existence.

When considering the existence of something I can only rely on what we know - there have never been any objective measures of a God, no energy, no mass, no observed phenomena, no effects, no theory that would explain this, nothing, zilch a big zero. When something displays no measurable characteristics there is only one explanation - it is does not exist in physical terms.

Would you consider God to exist not in physical terms? Why or why not?

1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The creation of life is an interesting one - the concept of a primordial soup does hold some attractions here and the formation of basic proteins that over time became self-replicating is a possibility. More study is needed to clarify the position however the lack of clarity does not mean that the wizard's wand comes back into the equation.

We could study this clear to infinity... we would still need a "wizard's wand" to explain it. I hope you don't wait until "infinity" to realize this.

The creation of life is an interesting one - the concept of a primordial soup does hold some attractions here and the formation of basic proteins that over time became self-replicating is a possibility. More study is needed to clarify the position however the lack of clarity does not mean that the wizard's wand comes back into the equation.

How and why would intellect develop beyond the necessity of survival then?

10. Do you believe there are no absolutes?

In what sense? There are absolutes in maths (conceptual of course). You need to put this into context.

In any sense at all. In any context - are there absolutes? That's the question. It is not limited to any subject matter.

11. Are the laws of logic absolute?

Give me the laws and I will comment

When asked if you do what you feel should be done, you said:

"I try to take a logical approach"

So, I will define the laws of logic to be whatever criteria you use when determining what to do, in that sense.

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote:

Quote:
Answer #2: I don't understand the context here. Incest is not advantageous in terms of genetic diversity. Evolved behaviours tend to control behaviour on this and I am no different from everone else. There would also be victims, the child and my wife.


How would the child be a victim?

There are a large numbers of ways in which the child could be a victim through social stigmatisation through to genetic disorders caused by the expression of passive genes.

Quote:
This is too big to cover in a short reply - the factors that determine human behaviour are multifold and there is unlikely to be a simple answer to why any of us do a specific thing when placed in a particular situation. And, of course, this begs the question of what is bad. Your bad may not be my bad.


Well then - let's not take "borderline" bad. Let's take the "bad" that pretty much everyone can agree on.

Do you mean bad in the Christian sense (thou shalt not kill etc?). Let's take murder - the reasons for this can be multiple from personal protection, creation of status in a culture that recognises murder as positive (some gang cultures require a murder to gain street cred), to the simple expression of base human emotions. The factors that control this are complex - many can be measured through the use of trait-based profiling, some are becoming more apparent via MRI scanning of brain activity when exposed to stimuli. There are classic "murderer's profiles" which tend to contain similar traits - for example inability to feel remorse (often found in sociopaths and psychopaths). I believe murder to be a natural human response that has been mitigated by social conditioning over time. We are only animals after all and animals murder each other every day. Is it bad? Well that would depend on the circumstances...

Quote:
My default is that God does not exist. My reason? I have never seen any objective evidence for his existence.

When considering the existence of something I can only rely on what we know - there have never been any objective measures of a God, no energy, no mass, no observed phenomena, no effects, no theory that would explain this, nothing, zilch a big zero. When something displays no measurable characteristics there is only one explanation - it is does not exist in physical terms.


Would you consider God to exist not in physical terms? Why or why not?

Something that exists in non-physical terms is merely conceptual. Of course god exists as a concept. So does Santa.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Many things are invisible that still exist in a physical sense - subatomic particles for one...

Quote:
The creation of life is an interesting one - the concept of a primordial soup does hold some attractions here and the formation of basic proteins that over time became self-replicating is a possibility. More study is needed to clarify the position however the lack of clarity does not mean that the wizard's wand comes back into the equation.


We could study this clear to infinity... we would still need a "wizard's wand" to explain it. I hope you don't wait until "infinity" to realize this.

I do not believe that this will require a study through to infinity - the creation of life in the laboratory is likely if scientific advances continue at their current rate. Of course it may not be in our lifetime...

Quote:
The creation of life is an interesting one - the concept of a primordial soup does hold some attractions here and the formation of basic proteins that over time became self-replicating is a possibility. More study is needed to clarify the position however the lack of clarity does not mean that the wizard's wand comes back into the equation.


How and why would intellect develop beyond the necessity of survival then?

I believe that intellect is an evolutionary accident. We are only bags of genes - they are the true unit of life (in my view) everything else is an aside.

Quote:

Quote:
10. Do you believe there are no absolutes?


In what sense? There are absolutes in maths (conceptual of course). You need to put this into context.


In any sense at all. In any context - are there absolutes? That's the question. It is not limited to any subject matter.

Yes - mathematical theorems are absolutely true now and forever.

Quote:

Quote:
11. Are the laws of logic absolute?


Give me the laws and I will comment


When asked if you do what you feel should be done, you said:
Quote:
"I try to take a logical approach"

So, I will define the laws of logic to be whatever criteria you use when determining what to do, in that sense.

Then the answer is no - humans are fallable therefore logic is fallable.

[bernee51]

So why does GL ask these particular questions?

It is worth looking at each in the light of the various arguments for the existence of god.

1. So do you do what you feel should be done? Or is there some other basis for what you do?

The arguments from morals and values make up what are known as the Axiological Arguments (axios = value). According to the Argument from Values, there are universal human values and ideals — things like goodness, beauty, truth, justice, etc. These values are not simply experienced subjectively but are really exist and are creations of God.

ditto for 2, 3, 4 and 5

6. Is there a reason for you as an athiest to intellectually conclude that there is no God? Or do you simply believe there is no God?

This is known as the Ontological Argument for the existence of God and is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies soley upon logical arguments and not at all upon empirical evidence.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so:

We have a concept of a Perfect Being:
Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.

7. Do you have a presupposition that miracles cannot occur? If so, what is the basis for this?

The Argument from Miracles is based first and foremost on the premise that there exist events which must be explained by supernatural causes - in short, some sort of god. Probably every religion has had miracle claims and so the promotion and apologetics for every religion has included references to allegedly miraculous events. Because it is likely that a god is their supernatural cause, belief in this god is supposed to be reasonable

8. All events have causes. What caused life? What caused the universe?

The Cosmological Argument covers a lot of ground and takes a number of different forms, but the most common deal with two ideas: the existence of the universe requires God as an explanation (First Cause — this form is also called the Etiological Argument) or the order in the universe requires God as an explanation.

Hmmmm!

[potwalloper.]

Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so:

We have a concept of a Perfect Being:
Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.

We have a concept of a perfect Santa (invisible pink unicorn, hobbit, elf, goblin etc).

Such a perfect Santa (etc) must necessarily exist.

Why? If he did not exist he would not be perfect.

Laughable really if they didn't take it so seriously...

[chrispalasz]

For clarification purposes:

Thank you, bernee51, for putting my questions under a microscope. 8)
hahaha... that's fine. I did not ask these questions because I wanted to jump on somebody after they answered. I very sincerely asked them just because I wanted to know what the answers would be. In other words, I wanted to better understand an Athiests reasoning. I have never been an Athiest, really. I have been Agnostic... but not Athiestic, so I didn't know.

I will agree with potwalloper in his last post, and I will add that Saint Anselm of Canterbury's argument is laughable at best. If I were to go anywhere with this question beyond curiousety, it would not be down that path! It would be down this one:

I would point out the inherent contradiction for an Athiest to claim to "know" that there is no God, rather than believe that there is no God. If you would claim to "know" there is no God, you would have to know all things. Knowing all things, in some people's opinion, would make you a type of god. Not believing that God exists leaves, in your view, infinite possabilities to be proven wrong.

This is just an example. You can refute the above paragraph or comment on it... but I am unlikely to carry the discussion any further than that - since I am not, in fact, making this point, but merely providing it as an example of a point that I might make. I am not inclined to discuss it further (It's not that interesting).