Atheism discussion thread

[BeauJangles]

Well, I don't need to ascribe a higher significance, what I want is to know why our existence as we know it happened in the first place - not how.

And what you said supports my point to a degree, probability. If something is so improbable from a random standpoint, conversely, what is the probability that it isn't random?

We're talking in loops here. We exist as a product of random genetic mutations that have been selected over hundreds of millions of years. You have a desire to make this something far greater than it is by interjecting this idea of "struggling" to exist. We don't struggle to exist any more than an engine struggles to operate or a pencil struggles to write. Yes, life has had a bumpy road to get to where it is today, but that wasn't a struggle because life has no aspirations. Those single-celled organisms didn't dream of one day evolving into complex multi-cellular life. Rather, they went on existing because that's all they "knew" how to do. It was natural selection and genetic variation that eventually turned out more complicated life. Just like a beaver doesn't struggle to become human, life has never struggled to exist or improve itself.

No, what I said doesn't support your point at all. If we roll the dice again, life probably would evolve somewhere, but it probably wouldn't be much like the life we have here, today. The genetic mutations that led to us having two legs, two eyes, two arms, two ears, etc may have happened entirely different resulting in life that would look incredibly foreign to us.

 

[MJinZ]

Why must there be a "why?"

If we're here by accident why can't we consider ourselves lucky and make the most of the lives we have?

Why MUST there have been some cosmic force or entity that intended us to be here? Must we be so solipsistic and arrogant?

Your missing the question, like many others. The Why is not a "Why are here on Earth", it is a purely scientific question of "Why do the forces of nature create such an improbable organized form of existence we call "life" when the forces of the Universe seemingly "conspire" against such an existence"?

It is not a philosophical question at its core, but an essential scientific question as to the workings of the Universe.

 

[totalnoob]

And what you said supports my point to a degree, probability. If something is so improbable from a random standpoint, conversely, what is the probability that it isn't random?

We are certainly "lucky" to be here when you see how messy and wasteful the evolutionary process is..but regardless of the odds, SOMETHING had to be here. As unlikely as it is..somebody always wins the lottery. Given that we are the only ones on earth pondering the question, it turned out to be us.

 

[MJinZ]

We're talking in loops here. We exist as a product of random genetic mutations that have been selected over hundreds of millions of years. You have a desire to make this something far greater than it is by interjecting this idea of "struggling" to exist. We don't struggle to exist any more than an engine struggles to operate or a pencil struggles to write. Yes, life has had a bumpy road to get to where it is today, but that wasn't a struggle because life has no aspirations. Those single-celled organisms didn't dream of one day evolving into complex multi-cellular life. Rather, they went on existing because that's all they "knew" how to do. It was natural selection and genetic variation that eventually turned out more complicated life. Just like a beaver doesn't struggle to become human, life has never struggled to exist or improve itself.

No, what I said doesn't support your point at all. If we roll the dice again, life probably would evolve somewhere, but it probably wouldn't be much like the life we have here, today. The genetic mutations that led to us having two legs, two eyes, two arms, two ears, etc may have happened entirely different resulting in life that would look incredibly foreign to us.

Well, I think you need to do some more research into the matter. Genetics are far more advanced than you can imagine. I'm talking about the basics - the beginning. Forces of Abiogenesis. The forces that make replication possible.

I'm talking about why Life in its most simplest form (RNA like entities) organized and persisted to create what we know as DNA.

Yes, your essential understanding of Evolution and Genetics allow you make a conclusion of the current state of our existence, but the mystery remains as to the beginnings. And only from the beginnings can we find the common denominator as to Why the anomoly of life exists. And with that, we get into Time.. which is another topic that gets deeper than my understanding.

But the relationship of Entropy and Time is clearly laid out. It is a fascinating topic and worth looking into.

 

[Tristicus]

There are Christian atheists. :awe:

 

[El Guaraguao]

There are Christian atheists. :awe:

Wouldnt that make them even bigger hypocrits?

lol, i kid, i kid.........or am I? :awe:

 

[Tristicus]

They don't believe in a God, or believe God is dead, but follow the teachings of Jesus.

:awe:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And the fact remains, if they are truly Atheists, they have no rational reason to behave in such a manner.

I submit that any type of decisions about prescriptive behavior are not rational. For that reason, it is not only atheists that lack rational bases for their moral beliefs. It's everyone.

I'm not saying that moral beliefs are irrational, either. They are arational.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, your essential understanding of Evolution and Genetics allow you make a conclusion of the current state of our existence, but the mystery remains as to the beginnings. And only from the beginnings can we find the common denominator as to Why the anomoly of life exists. And with that, we get into Time.. which is another topic that gets deeper than my understanding.

These are my own musings, not anything for which I'd purport to have factual basis.

I'm not personally convinced that LIFE has a beginning. My own hypotheses about the nature of life and consciousness are based on a philosophy of panpsychism. See A. N. Whitehead or W.E. Seager for some literature on the subject. Essentially, it is the nature of consciousness to seek expression through spontaneous organization.

When we examine the past of our planet and universe, we observe the development of "life as we know it," or in other words, there was a place in time when basically "alive" i.e. conscious material began to make forms which we have arbitrarily decided to call "life" in a biological sense. Keep in mind that it is US that superimpose our definitions onto reality, not reality that makes our definitions for us. To me it seems silly to arbitrarily divide "life" from "non-life" and then sit perplexed about how one becomes the other without re-examining our definitions in the first place.

 

[child of wonder]

Those beliefs are universal amongst people, whether they are self-professed Atheists or not.

And the fact remains, if they are truly Atheists, they have no rational reason to behave in such a manner.

That statement is very disingenuous.

You're saying that a devout Christian believes they should just be a good person and see what happens in the afterlife?

Also, there are rational reasons to behave morally or to better one's self and the reason don't need to be altruistic. Societies break down when people don't help each other. It is in all our best interests not to murder each other, steal everything, or rape and pillage communities. We would not have survived this long if there was no benefit to abhorring those practices.

However, now we can understand the societal and cultural benefits ourselves without needing mythological tales to convince us.

 

[destrekor]

Well, I think you need to do some more research into the matter. Genetics are far more advanced than you can imagine. I'm talking about the basics - the beginning. Forces of Abiogenesis. The forces that make replication possible.

I'm talking about why Life in its most simplest form (RNA like entities) organized and persisted to create what we know as DNA.

Yes, your essential understanding of Evolution and Genetics allow you make a conclusion of the current state of our existence, but the mystery remains as to the beginnings. And only from the beginnings can we find the common denominator as to Why the anomoly of life exists. And with that, we get into Time.. which is another topic that gets deeper than my understanding.

But the relationship of Entropy and Time is clearly laid out. It is a fascinating topic and worth looking into.

Essentially life is simply a freak occurrence, and once it gets started, the ball just keeps rolling.

Remember everything we know is merely some composition of chemicals. Chemicals arrange themselves in odd ways if given the right conditions.

The current standing theory for the first spark of life is the primordial soup tidal pool concept. A mix of chemicals sits in a tidal pool, with large amounts of radiation (little atmosphere at this point) beaming down onto the water. As we know, chemical bonds break and form due to radiation, so with the right mix of chemicals, this could have helped established the first biologically important chemical compositions, or even established the first single cellular life.

Essentially, it is a concept of if something is possible, how long until it occurs? Given the right circumstances, it probably happens quite often. On early Earth, it may have happened multiple times, and it may have happened over millions of years as chemical compounds were created in tidal pools, and life couldn't start until compounds from a variety of tidal pools finally came into contact with each other in a single tidal pool.

Scientists HAVE taken basic chemical compounds, subjected them to similar environments, and after a great deal of time, ended up with a very important organic compound. Imagine this occurring all over the planet, and after millions if not hundreds of millions of years, something we could call the first species came into being.

There is a long time between Earth having a solid surface with some water, and advanced lifeforms coming into existence... an amount of time we cannot even comprehend.

 

[mjrpes3]

Well, I think you need to do some more research into the matter. Genetics are far more advanced than you can imagine. I'm talking about the basics - the beginning. Forces of Abiogenesis. The forces that make replication possible.

I'm talking about why Life in its most simplest form (RNA like entities) organized and persisted to create what we know as DNA.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We still don't understand many things about the universe. Many of things we don't understand are fascinating in their complexity and do instill in us a sense of awe. But where are you trying to place God at this point? None of us skeptics here are compelled that the forces of abiogenesis are so unnatural that they must have had a supernatural origin. In fact, I am less amazed by abiogenesis than I am the symbiosis of single cell organisms to multicellular organisms, culminating in the nervous system and consciousness. Yet I still believe all of this has natural origins.

When we get into metaphysical questions like time, space, and existence itself, there is indeed much less we known about (and probably will never know about), yet anything we try to say about these deeper metaphysical questions is purely speculation and it would be impossible to convince anyone that this or that account of the metaphysical is correct. There are enough problems trying to convince people that the theory of evolution is valid, even with ample evidence. Metaphysical speculation only helps to reinforce views that you already hold, whether they be religious or atheist.

 

[totalnoob]

I submit that any type of decisions about prescriptive behavior are not rational. For that reason, it is not only atheists that lack rational bases for their moral beliefs. It's everyone.

I'm not saying that moral beliefs are irrational, either. They are arational.

Objective morality can be discovered in principle through a scientific process. We should be able to judge moral principles as "good" or "bad" by the results they achieve. Any principles that further human life and happiness are good..and any that hinder or degrade the quality of life are bad. It shouldn't be too difficult to prove things like theft, aggression, racism, etc are objectively immoral/anti-human ideas..while things like liberty, non-aggression, tolerance, intellectual curiosity etc are moral (life-sustaining) ideas.

 

[shadow9d9]

Those beliefs are universal amongst people, whether they are self-professed Atheists or not.

And the fact remains, if they are truly Atheists, they have no rational reason to behave in such a manner.

Those beliefs are NOT universal amongst people and what is irrational about feeling good being a good person?

 

[destrekor]

Those beliefs are universal amongst people, whether they are self-professed Atheists or not.

And the fact remains, if they are truly Atheists, they have no rational reason to behave in such a manner.

No rational reason to behave in what manner?

As good people?

The proliferation of our species and the continued success of it, specifically forward-thinking, requires sound moral reasoning. Some of these "morals" may stand against religious morality, but in the end... any human that accepts the animal nature of life, would accept that we must take up our animal nature and preserve the good, and take action to slowly remove some of our more negative instincts. Our species requires we live in peace with one another, though oddly enough, our method of life, with progress as the ultimate goal, has currently been designed around conflict. The most progress is born out of conflict, whether it is war or the threat of war. The Cold War brought some of the most important advancements in technology and science.

It is very rational to be behave in a 'good' manner. Continued interspecies rifts are very irrational. On that end, religion (not faith, but the actual book-bound religions) breeds more negative morals than accepting our pure animal history. If we accept what we are, we can accept what our short-comings are, what are prior mistakes are, and make progress to move past them. Religions often encourage, either directly or indirectly, violence against the believers of other religions. And it serves as a mighty tool when people blindly follow the faith and the authority figures use the religion and its people as a tool for power and bloodlust.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Objective morality can be discovered in principle through a scientific process.

Patently nonsensical.

We should be able to judge moral principles as "good" or "bad" by the results they achieve. Any principles that further human life and happiness are good..and any that hinder or degrade the quality of life are bad.

The latter sentence is merely a moral postulate of yours, not any objective fact of reality.

It shouldn't be too difficult to prove things like theft, aggression, racism, etc are objectively immoral/anti-human ideas..while things like liberty, non-aggression, tolerance, intellectual curiosity etc are moral (life-sustaining) ideas.

Moral truths are not "provable" outside of a moral system, which is itself necessarily based on moral postulates. Objective facts are those that describe what is, whereas moral statements describe what ought to be. The distinction should be obvious.

 

[lxskllr]

I haven't checked this thread in awhile. Have the great minds of ATOT determined the meaning of life, and the origin of the universe yet?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I haven't checked this thread in awhile. Have the great minds of ATOT determined the meaning of life, and the origin of the universe yet?

It's 42. We got that out of the way a while ago. :awe:

 

[totalnoob]

Patently nonsensical.
Objective facts are those that describe what is, whereas moral statements describe what ought to be. The distinction should be obvious.

What "ought to be" must first flow from a recognition of what IS.. A proper moral system must recognize the nature of man and enshrine his rights.. I'll give you one example..

Facts:

1. Morality is based on values.

2. Man's life is his standard of value. Without life, no other values are possible to him.

3. Man's nature requires he take action to sustain his life.

4. In the absence of violence, reason and voluntary trade are man's only means of survival. They are the only way for a man to create the values needed to sustain his life.

These facts have several major implications about the type of moral system a society should adopt. Totalitarianism acts to direct the individual with force/coercion. Every form of coercion smothers independent thought and action to one extent or another. In other words, it handicaps man's means of survival. For this reason any totalitarian/utopian philosophy can be objectively shown to be anti-life, and hence immoral.

 

[StageLeft]

God is both the universe's hardware and its software.

In any case, you're not necessarily going to find God (at least religions' concept of God) purely through science any more than you are likely to get ripped up with huge arms by doing math or answering a difficult math problem by painting a beautiful picture. Math is one way to describe the world, history another, art another. Considering how many questions science has not answered I would be cautious to call a person a fool who prefers to use more than science in understanding existence. Such an argument would make more sense if all theologians were fools, but the school has many of great intelligence and knowledge.

 

[Lonyo]

Your missing the question, like many others. The Why is not a "Why are here on Earth", it is a purely scientific question of "Why do the forces of nature create such an improbable organized form of existence we call "life" when the forces of the Universe seemingly "conspire" against such an existence"?

It is not a philosophical question at its core, but an essential scientific question as to the workings of the Universe.

It doesn't matter how improbable it is, since it happened.
The main question is not why it happened, it happened because it happened, and we are the result of it happening, but what the nature of the occurrences is.

The only reason we're able to think about why the forces of nature created is is because everything was so aligned as to enable us to be created. I can't express it very clearly, but the fact that we are here and able to think about why we are here is enough that the why has no meaning, because it's just the chance occurrence which happened to happen and lead to us.

Sure, life could have not existed, but we wouldn't be around to ask "why didn't life come into being?"
We are here because we are here. The universe didn't try and make us, and it didn't try and make us as we are, we are as we are because of the way the universe developed, and there is no why, only a how. How did all the events which led up to this point occur, what happened through time to result in this stage. The "why" doesn't even exist, because we exist. We don't exist despite the universe, we exist because of it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What "ought to be" must first flow from a recognition of what IS..

Again, pure nonsense.

A proper moral system must recognize the nature of man and enshrine his rights.. I'll give you one example..

Facts:

1. Morality is based on values.

2. Man's life is his standard of value. Without life, no other values are possible to him.

#2 is not a given.

3. Man's nature requires he take action to sustain his life.

4. In the absence of violence, reason and voluntary trade are man's only means of survival. They are the only way for a man to create the values needed to sustain his life.

#4 is not a given.

These facts have several major implications about the type of moral system a society should adopt. Totalitarianism acts to direct the individual with force/coercion. Every form of coercion smothers independent thought and action to one extent or another. In other words, it handicaps man's means of survival. For this reason any totalitarian/utopian philosophy can be objectively shown to be anti-life, and hence immoral.

It is not an objective fact that anti-life == immoral. I'm sorry, but this is a fruitless endeavor you've undertaken. Morals are based on values, and values are subjective, not objective.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God is both the universe's hardware and its software.

In any case, you're not necessarily going to find God (at least religions' concept of God) purely through science any more than you are likely to get ripped up with huge arms by doing math or answering a difficult math problem by painting a beautiful picture. Math is one way to describe the world, history another, art another. Considering how many questions science has not answered I would be cautious to call a person a fool who prefers to use more than science in understanding existence. Such an argument would make more sense if all theologians were fools, but the school has many of great intelligence and knowledge.

For as vocal as I tend to be on these subjects, I thought it would be worthwhile to note that I don't have any explicit objection to this line of thinking. What I only really have a problem with is people that attempt to dress up their religious beliefs as scientific facts, or in any other way attempt to declare their religious beliefs to be objective facts that others have a necessary duty to acknowledge as the same.

 

[destrekor]

What "ought to be" must first flow from a recognition of what IS.. A proper moral system must recognize the nature of man and enshrine his rights.. I'll give you one example..

Facts:

1. Morality is based on values.

2. Man's life is his standard of value. Without life, no other values are possible to him.

3. Man's nature requires he take action to sustain his life.

4. In the absence of violence, reason and voluntary trade are man's only means of survival. They are the only way for a man to create the values needed to sustain his life.

These facts have several major implications about the type of moral system a society should adopt. Totalitarianism acts to direct the individual with force/coercion. Every form of coercion smothers independent thought and action to one extent or another. In other words, it handicaps man's means of survival. For this reason any totalitarian/utopian philosophy can be objectively shown to be anti-life, and hence immoral.

You are looking at value and morality through a cultural lens.
Thus, any reasons derived from such views are subjective.

Not every culture is an individualistic culture. Many tribal cultures took the goals of man and turned them into the goals of society. An individual life was nothing but a gift, a tool, and this was accepted by all individuals. For the survival of the society, and to uphold the quality of life, an individual would not have values that pertained to self.

In the most distant light, these can be seen as similar - the goals and values are ultimately the same, but how this plays out in individual actions within a collectivist culture displays a far different moral system.

This is the goal man needs to strive for. NOTE, this does not equate at all to collectivist economy. My arguments against collectivist economy are not for this thread, but suffice it to say progress is not possible without conflict; collectivist economies, when coupled with a true collectivist society, require cultural conflict to produce progress.
A world-wide collectivist social structure coupled with micro-collectivist private industry, would provide the means for peaceful conflict (competition through industry and education), which could drive progress for the entire civilization.
"For the betterment of all" is ultimately the end goal here.

Can we achieve that any time soon? Hell no. We are not intelligent enough to handle such a way of life.
And as long as there are many religions, it is utterly impossible. Common faith is not required, as faith must be personal. Even if we barred all religious material, removed the religion from the faith... if the entire culture united under a single god (as is the one common characteristic of the major religions today), as long as it was publicly communicated, it would drive some to ultimately be driven away, restarting the cycle yet again.

Religion and opposing faith will forever be the bane of our species if we continue to publicly acknowledge such a thing. Conflict is unavoidable as long as faith is a public topic.

 

[totalnoob]

Again, pure nonsense.
#2 is not a given.

Kindly explain how one holds values if he is not alive.

#4 is not a given.

Kindly explain how people are to create the values needed to sustain themselves without using reason.

It is not an objective fact that anti-life == immoral. I'm sorry, but this is a fruitless endeavor you've undertaken. Morals are based on values, and values are subjective, not objective.

It is an objective fact buddy. Life and non-life are the two fundamental choices in the universe. Corpses do not have values. If you want to possess any value whatever, you must adopt a moral system that supports your capacity to have values in the first place, in other words..your capacity to remain alive.