Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

Post by **_atheist** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:30 pm

Hi there,
I have been an atheist for 16 years (and Christian prior to that). I found your forum after Steve Greggs' interview with "the Infidel Guy". I don't think Reggie explains the atheistic position very well when he talks (his writing is a little better) so I will try and answer any question you may have about my own lack of belief. Of course I don't speak for Reggie or even for other atheists, but I speak for myself and I have reasons to think that my views are shared among most atheists.

If you are interested in asking me a question please do so and I'll answer to the best of my ability. I'm well read and understand both the pro-Christianity and pro-Atheism arguments. Obviously I made my choice to abandon Christianity. If you're curious why please ask me and I'll respond.

I believe we can keep this a civil debate without flamewars. I've looked at some comments in this forum and most debates here are civilized and I vow keep it this way.

I know that atheism seems incomprehensible to many of you. Therefore I will be glad to explain what makes me "tick" and why I'm neither an "evil heathen" nor an "apathetic fatalist"

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:42 pm

Hi atheist,

Welcome to the forum! I know I'll be asking some questions later.

Derek

Post by **_Jim** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:34 am

Hi athiest and welcome

*stops to put on his smarty pants*

ok ready.

So you say you are neither an evil heathen or an apathetic fatalist, but could you be an evil apathetic heathen fatalist?

sorry couldn't resist. I am actually interested in what changed your position?

I personally went from believing in God but not trusting in Him, to claim to be completely atheistic at a catholic university, to coming completely to Christ. I can honestly say science is one major area that helped me come to Christ.

Jim

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:06 am

I believe we can keep this a civil debate without flamewars. I've looked at some comments in this forum and most debates here are civilized and I vow keep it this way.

Hi A, My question is something i'm sure you've heard before but here it is. You'll acknowledge complex software is created by a programmer but DNA which is far more complex and is part of trillions of organisms you believe just evolved and replicated trillions of times and continues to by a natural undirected process to replicate and is caused by some other ingrediant like RNA which was created by some natural undirected process and then the instructions in DNA are read by amino acids created by another natural undirected process.
IMO what science is allowing us to see is the opposite of what you see which is an ever increasing complexity of life of everything. Darwin said it was hard to believe the eye could just evolve and he had no idea of how complex just the eye is.
Why did the first single cell evolve into a muti cell structure since it did'nt need to because it was self sufficient and why would anything evolve if it is self sufficient?
Where are species that are evolving half this and half that , have we found any half bird half lizard creatures , we've found whole dinosaurs why not half breed creatures?
Anyway i understand unexplained things don't prove that God exists it only suggests to me that no other rational answer exists that can answer these questions. Naturalism does'nt make sense to me since it provides no answers.

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:16 pm

Steve7150,
As far as the complexity of DNA goes. It's actually not as complex as it seems! There is a lot of "data" in the genome but much of it is "junk" basically there for historical reasons. Now, you wouldn't expect a Designer (especially the perfect one) to put junk code into its creation?

Not all of biogenesis can be explained by science today. That much is true but to asume a supernatural cause of life on earth is certainly premature. The research in these areas is progressing very nicely. Some of the building blocks of life can be recreated in the lab. Not all of them but some. However, science has not closed the book on that yet.

As far as evolution itself goes? We do have transitional spiecies in the evolution chain. Just last month a fossil of an animal that was half land half waterborne was discovered. Anyway there are true transitional spiecies. However, I think the whole evolution debate is orthogonal to religious beliefs. Obviulsy I accept the evolution theory but so do many Catholics without rejecting the Bible. It is only certain denominations of Christianity that rejejct evolution.

As for the beginning of the Universe itself? To be honest the existing answer is "don't know" and I learned to grow comfortable with this answer. I don't have to know everything right now. However, questions such as "what happened before the Big Bang?" might make little sense. Perhaps it's like asking "what lies north of the North Pole?". Remember, there was not time before the Big Bang. Thus asking about "before" only makes sense in the 3+1 dimensions that we experience every day. Anyway, it is a big question of science and one that does not have the final answer.

Jim,
I went from being a devout Catholic, to being a pretty sceptical one (as I researched the subject for myself) to creating my own New-Age type spirituality, to eventually deciding that there is zero evidence for any of it and admitting to myself that I simply did not believe in the supernatural.

However, the transition was far from smooth or stress free. The big gaping gap of science for me was the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - a very spooky phenomenon that could point to existence of consciousness outside of a physical body. But then, I looked at people with brain damage and it became clear that our consciousness appears to be generated in our brains (think about people wiht Alzheimers etc). Thus the significance of the brain in our cognition appears to point to a naturalistic explanation of consciousness.

However, if one was to construe a scientific argument for a "soul" or "spirit" then the QM interpretations leave a door open. That said, there are other Quantum Mechanics interpretations (Many Worlds for example) which do not mandate consciousness outside the material world and I gravitate towards them because such a world view is more consistent with the "consciousness in the brain" scenario.

On a different note. I expected to see a question regarding my attitude towards religion. You know whether I'm angry at God etc.
Since nobody asked I'll answer anyway

. I'm not angry at God or church. However, I must admit, religion sort of scares me. I know I'm not the only atheist to say this. People like George W Bush and Osama bin Laden while professing to hold opposite world views are actually more alike than different. Both are intolerant of non-believers. Both see themselves as "the righteous ones" and both think that the end justifies the means. I'm not an atheist who thinks that religion is the root of all evil, but I do worry about militant religiosity exhibited by both bin Laden and Bush. I also worry that Bush has the support of Christians in America given some very un-Christian things he has done since becoming president (like launching wars or condoning torture). Now, I'm not vindicating bin Laden here or the Islamic extremists because they are evil people but... I haven't a clue how so many evangelicals see Bush as "their" president. Why is that? Just because he wants to stop gay marriage? It's a phony distraction issue that Bush played up to capture the votes of the gullible. Not everyone who waves the Bible in their hands lives by the "Golden Rule" of Jesus. Think about this.

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:09 pm

Atheist,

Now, I'm not vindicating bin Laden here or the Islamic extremists because they are evil people but...

On what grounds would you consider bin laden to be evil? How can you have good and evil in an atheistic worldview?

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:19 pm

Derek,

On what grounds would you consider bin laden to be evil? How can you have good and evil in an atheistic worldview?

Great question. Atheists believe that the only life we have is here, on earth. Thus anyone who intents to harm human life (and for some even animal life) is evil. Atheists adopt ethics based on the good of the society and minimization of suffering. Bin Laden's doctrines ("kill the infidels etc, etc") fly very much in the face of this principle and I and most atheists consider him "evil" or at least extremely misguided in his sense of "justice"... actually, scratch that. He harmed innocent people who have not harmed him just to prove his point. He's evil plain and simple.

I determine what's good and bad based on the principle of supporting life and helping increase the quality of life. Of course there are moral dilemmas which can be tricky to resolve (like pregnancy which threatens the life of the mother) but even the Christian world view does not have clear cut answers in such cases.

Contrary to what you might think, athiests have a strong sense of ethics. Believing in a diety is not necessary for a sense of "good" and "bad". Cooperative behaviour and emapthy towards another human being is part of how we humans are wired. Yes, I believe it does come from evolution but I think it's a good thing. I donate to cancer research charities not because I believe someone will reward me for it in the afterlife but because I have seen lots of cancer suferers and empathise with their plight.

Believing in the supernatural or life after death is a separate issue from ethics and moral behaviour. Though many religions glue those things together they are really separate issues.

Post by **_Christopher** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:38 pm

Hi Atheist,

Twice now you have indicated what you believe to be evil.

In one thread you wrote:

Finally, the big question of morals/ethics. Contrary to what you have been told, atheists are moral, caring and compassionate. We watch in horror how the world's events unravel as religious extremists on both sides (Bush and Osama) are steering the world towads a disaster. That's why we want to connect with you Christians to stop the evil which is not Islam or Christianity but extremism in general.

and in this thread you wrote:

Atheists adopt ethics based on the good of the society and minimization of suffering. Bin Laden's doctrines ("kill the infidels etc, etc") fly very much in the face of this principle and I and most atheists consider him "evil".

The problem is, what if one of these "extremist" views are actually true? In that case, your rejecting it as false because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. If Islam is true and bin Laden is carrying out it's requirements, then by definition, he is in the right is he not? The question of extremism is merely subjective and is no basis at all for rejecting anything. You can call anything extreme.

In a naturalistic world view, how can your view of "good" and "evil" be any more valid than Islam or Christianity since thoughts themselves are by the naturalistic definition all just random cosmic accidents? Chemical reactions and atoms randomly bumping into each other. One thought is as valid and rational as another because they're not rational at all...just accidental. It seems to me that the view "unravels itself at the core" (paraphrase from C.S. Lewis.).

I know you say you are well read and understand all the arguments, but I've yet to see you adequately dismantle the teleological argument. We simply do not see in our universe things going from chaos to complex order, we see the opposite.

By the way, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue in a civil manner.

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:03 pm

Christopher,

First I reject that bin Laden (or Bush for that matter) are right just because they have strong faith/thoughts on issues. To me, religious beliefs have little evidencial basis so I don't seriously entertain the possibility of them being "right' in th objective sense ie having the correct knowledge of the Universe. The evidence is stacked up against them.

To put it another way, just because some crackpot believes we never landed on the moon (against overwhelming evidence to the contrary) does not mean that the crackpot's views "are equally valid" because "it's all relative".

In a naturalistic world view, how can your view of "good" and "evil" be any more valid than Islam or Christianity since thoughts themselves are by the naturalistic definition all just random cosmic accidents? Chemical reactions and atoms randomly bumping into each other.

As far as what is "random" and what is "free will" that is a philosphical argument that is overplayed. Sure, there is a built in raondomness of the universe (based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) yet it is clear that at the macro level, our brains are able to distinguish harm from good and make judgement of the consequences of our actions. I believe in the "free will" and I believe it is a naturally ocurring phenomenon. Just because we're not supernatural does not mean we're mechanical clockworks. Our brains are able to formulate thoughts about the world we live in and act upon those thoughts.

Anyway, the "true free will" argument is as much troubling for Christianity as for any other worldview. At a pragmatic level we can all conclude that we all have a large degree of "free will" and mental disease notwithstanding, we can direct our own actions and forsee the consequences.

One thought is as valid and rational as another because they're not rational at all...just accidental.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Just because we are all able to formulate random thoughts and create stories, does not mean they are all true. There is an objective world governed by objective laws of physics which control the direction of the universe. Everyone is entitled to their own worldview but they are not entiltled to harm people in the name of that worldview. You seem to have a distorted understanding of a naturalistic philosophy. Just because we have situations that are not morally cut and dried does not imply that every outrageous behaviour is up for debate because it's all "relativisitic". The generally accepted truths such as that of the value of life, are accepted in the atheistic philosophy without discourse, save for some warped interpretations by psychopaths.

We simply do not see in our universe things going from chaos to complex order, we see the opposite.

That's not true. How do you explain the "desert rose"? There is a theory of emergence that claims that certain complex patterns can emerge from very simple phenomena. There is a good bit of math behind it and it's an active research area. Besides, the second law of thermodynamics applies ot distribution of energy not information. Just because energy tends to become more and more dissipated does not mean that information does as well.

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:23 pm

I determine what's good and bad based on the principle of supporting life and helping increase the quality of life.

This does not work where the rubber meets the road. The only real way to make any claims of good and evil are to appeal to a source outside of ourselves from which we derive an "absolute" standard.

In your view, there is no real absolute to appeal to. It is simply an agreed upon concept. It is simply opinion and if I come along and say for instance "it's good for me to eat, so I will kill this fellow so I can have more food" there is really nothing you can appeal to to say that I am wrong. At best you can only say "I don't agree" or "I don't like that idea much" and I can say "so what of it?" Where do we go from there?

To me the idea of good and evil, which in reality we all know exists, is where the atheist position simply falls apart. At least it was enough to convince me when I was an atheist.

One more thing if I may. I for one do not see Bush or any politician for that matter as even being close to being the representative of our faith. I doubt anyone at this forum does for that matter.