Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Atheism

I was inspired by the "Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity" thread to start this one.

What questions do you have for atheism?

 

Do you not believe that Kim Il Sung who was proclaimed a god exists (well, existed)? Or Caesar? Some sun worshippers believed the sun to be a god. Do you believe the sun exists?

Presumably, you would question whether these are gods, rather than their existence. So, how do you decide which gods you consider when concluding that none of the suggested gods exist?

How do you resolve the cosmological argument? That is, the argument trace causes back in time, find the first one and call it "God".

 

I take each claim on a case by case basis. If a religion presents a god, I listen to the religion's claims, and if said claims are unconvincing, I move on.

Well, as an atheist, I simply deny the existence of every claimed deity I've heard about so far in my life. Our species has always wondered if there's purpose to life and if there's a higher intelligence behind things. The religions of the world are primitive man's best guesses.

As science matures, man moves from religious answers to empirical ones; we've begun to dprefer fact over faith. Instead of pointing at mystery and saying __[insert favorite deity]__ did it, we become empirical-minded; we ask, we seek, and we discover.

To answer your question, I don't know the answer. Nobody does. Religion is an answer that I reject, though. If there is a higher intelligence, I see no evidence that it has revealed itself in the form of religion, so if it does exist (I see no evidence it does) and assuming it knows we exist, then I'm confident that it doesn't want us to be religious.

If you can show me a credible deity worthy of my belief, then I'll believe.

 

Ok, then what about the sun? It is a god which has been presented (although sun worshippers aren't that common these days), and I'm reasonably convinced by the argument that the sun exists.

That's not really an answer to the question. I made no reference to higher intelligence, revelation or its will. I merely state that if the universe exists, then the process by which it came into being (or some aspect thereof) can be considered a god, which would have to exist. Exactly how the universe came into being is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument.

 

Stevie Wonder is blind
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

 

First I need your definition of atheism.

 

I have sufficient evidence that the sun exists but not enough to believe those who preach its divinity. As far as I can tell, the sun is not a deity.

The universe is a god because the universe exists? I don't follow. First, will you define what a "god" is? Second, how does it follow that "the universe's existence equals a god"? Your presumption seems to be that a god cannot not exist and therefore must, and it sounds eerily like St. Anselm's "proof" for the existence of God, which is basically "If I can imagine a perfect god, and if one of a perfect god's necessary attributes is existence, then a perfect God must exist because if it doesn't then it wouldn't be perfect and I wouldn't be imagining it." It's a cute but of sophistry, but it's silly and presumptuous.

I've read a bit about the cosmological argument in my time. I'm no philosopher, but even I see no reason to equate "first cause" with "god," whatever that vague term is supposed to mean.

 

I define atheism as the denial of a deity's existence. I'm more or less "agnostic" (for lack of a better word) when it comes to the "big questions," but I'm 100% convinced in my atheism regarding man's religions, which are nothing more than imaginative guesses at the answers to those questions. Zeus and Ahura Mazda and Yahweh and Allah and the Egyptian deities and so on are fantasy. It's clear to me that religion is a highly cultural phenomenon and that not one has a single piece of evidence for its particular claims.

Why should my guess be any less likely to be true than that of goat herders in a desert three millenia ago? Or the prophets of the Greek pantheon back in the day? Not only is my speculation not less than that offered by religions, but it's actually more, because my thoughts are informed by knowledge unknown to ancient man.

 

This is one of the best posts I have read in a long long while. I agree with this 100% especially about the part that you are actually more informed as we as a society have advanced and therefore I would trust your judgment over guys in a robe thousands of years ago. Seems to me that people speaking to God would have known certain scientific facts long before we had to prove it to them. Look at Copernicus. We'd probably have a cure for cancer by now and a clean energy source if it weren't for the religious types executing the blasphemers (modern day scientists)

 

According to Science and the Theory of Evolution...Every creature on Earth evolved from single cell organisms...Which came into existence from some primordial soup...

This is a theory, though many accept it as fact. If life sprang into existence from this primordial soup...Why can't science create or recreate this?

Science can clone, recreate DNA, combine DNA, even use stem cells and now grow new or print new organs, but they cannot create life. A new life from primordial soup. So how did this happen?

Did God create? Some microbes arrive with a meteor? There are many theories...

 

No questions...well maybe why have humans created thousands of gods without ever hearing from one of em?

https://godfinderarchive.wordpress.com/

 

Although you obviously do not find arguments for the existence of God persuasive, would you consider a deist a freethinker if they were convinced by such arguments (let's say the teleological argument), but did not appeal to (nor believe in) any particular religious scripture or tradition?

 

Good thread! I have a few for you..

1. As far as the basic Questions of man about the universe, how do you explain the How, Why, When, & What of human existence? This is 4 questions, which some wise men have summarized as
Origins
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

2. Do you believe in morality? Why? What basis is there for morality in a purely naturalistic view of the universe?

3. Why the obsession with god or gods from atheists? If you don't believe in them, why make a crusade out of attacking the concept?


Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. ~Heywood Broun

 

I don't have a problem with deism. I don't see any evidence for the existence of any such being, but I know that arguments are made by great philosophers.

 

I don't see evidence that there is a purpose to life. As far as I can tell, we are the chance product of a vast and foreboding universe. I don't believe in destiny other than the destiny we create for ourselves as individuals and as a species.

I believe that morality is relative. Many species have evolved to coexist in communities, probably because there is safety in numbers. "Emotions" and "morality" are psychological adaptations to allow communal living to work; if we "care about each other," we're more likely to protect each other, which ensures that the community survives and the individual with it. Other primates exhibit morality. Elephants do, too. (Elephants have been observed mourning for deceased members of their communities, and occasionally will return to the site of the elephant's death.) Bats are known to perform altruistic acts, like rescuing other bats' infants when they fall to the ground.

As far as I can tell, morality is perfectly explainable as an evolutionary adaptation. It sure isn't unique to our species.

I can't speak for other atheists. Many seem like they couldn't care less. Some, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are fed up with seeing society kowtowing to what we atheists consider to be adult fantasies.

In a society inundated with gods, why can't we have a voice? According to the US Constitution, it's illegal to require a person to be tested for their religion as a requirement for serving in public office, and yet eight states forbid atheists from serving in public office. Who's going to call out the hypocrisy? Since atheism is about "godlessness," it's kinda hard to talk about it without mentioning whatever the local god happens to be.

 

Good reply. Thanks for a reasoned discussion. Although, i don't know if 'calling out hypocrisy' is a noble Cause to live for. You will wear yourself out doing that with the human race. IMO, it is a distinctly human trait, not limited to specific religious or philosophical views.

I perhaps should have added another question:

4. How do you 'know' that your opinion about the universe is accurate?

Obviously, there are mysteries that boggle the human mind, & unknowns that leave us completely befuddled. Naturalism cannot explain everything, & has a lot of holes in it. Time, eternity, matter, & life itself is a mystery that is unanswerable by naturalistic means. So is not 'belief' in naturalism much the same, at the core, as belief in a supernatural Cause?

How can the universe even exist? How can life exist? energy & matter would have dissipated into eternal nothingness eons ago, with nothing to organize it into conditions that favor life, which is completely unexplainable by naturalistic methods.

Yet here we are.. clueless as to how, why, when, or what. And something.. we cannot define or explain this, either.. something gnaws at the human psyche, implying Something More. Why? What is the source of this 'angst'? Is it god? Nature? Psychosis?

I don't know. Declaring there is nothing beyond what we can see with our empirical senses seems pretty limiting, to me. The universe is much bigger than us. Our feeble, limited, & easily fooled minds cannot be relied upon to make such dogmatic assertions.


What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. ~Christopher Hitchens

 

Well, I don't deny mystery. There very well may be somebody out there. As an atheist, I merely deny all claims of any deities' existence due to the fact that no religion can offer evidence for its claims. It doesn't mean I deny the possibility of someone being out there. I don't even deny the possibility of a creator. I just see zero evidence for any deity proposed by religion. The deity of the Old Testament is a petty a**hole who kills innocent people and judges and tortures his little puppets, and if we don't prostrate ourselves before this egotistical maniac, all hell breaks loose. The deity of the New Testament is a hybrid of Hellenistic philosophy and Essenic mysticism that equates to basically a dead-beat father who's never there. Allah is Yahweh 2.0.

In other words, all the Abrahamic religions are crud. No other religion seems any less absurd, either.

 

As seems far too common you are equating Evolution with Abiogenesis. No one in science considers Abiogenesis to be a fact, though they are obviously working to verify the theory as we do with ALL theories. At this point in experiment and observation great strides have been made into the verification of the possible beginning of what we call life. The same cannot be said for a creation event by an entity after 2000+ years of attempted review for data.

You seem to expect science to immediately provide proof of concept while simply accepting your own hypothesis out of hand, even though there is absolutely nothing beyond ancient literature to back it up. Much of the basics required for self replication arising from chemical components found naturally throughout this universe has been shown as likely in lab experiments and in the billions or years and innumerable interactions that had to have occurred since our planet formed is far more likely than an invisible entity of incredible power simply poofing life into being.

 

Evolution carries with it the assumption, or presumption of abiogenesis.. unless you are of the theistic evolution camp, who believe that God started everything up, then used evolution to bring us to where we are today.. this is actually the most common view, as most people are both theists & evolutionists.

But for pure atheists, the assumption is that life spontaneously stated, via some unknown, mysterious natural process... that we cannot repeat, observe, or replicate in any way. So it is a mysterious unknown.. how life actually began. IMO, evolution fits into this as well. We cannot repeat, observe, or replicate in any way an 'increasing complexity' of genetic vertical movement, yet it is asserted as empirical fact. So as far as an 'origin of species' theory, it remains just a belief.. an opinion on the Great Question of HOW we got here. It is shrouded in pseudo scientific terms, to fool the simple minded into thinking there is some kind of hard evidence that proves their assertions, but there is not. There is only belief & strongly held opinion.

There is no mechanism for increasing complexity. Time, mutation, or other imagined factors cannot change the genetic structure of organisms in the way it is claimed. Science has PROVED that. We are left with an imagined scenario, with no empirical evidence to support it.

 

I see. It seems to me you are repulsed more by the idea of 'religion' rather than concluding atheism by empirical reasoning. How do you take into account the subtle workings of the mind of man, in your own case? Perhaps it is more psychologically based, & is more prejudice against abrahamic religions, rather than a logical conclusion based on empirical evidence. How can you keep the emotional bias separate from the empirical, in your own mind? Humans are funny creatures, & presumably, you are human, so how do you 'know' you are seeing things as they really are, & not as you wish them to be? Your reasoning seems to rest more on ridicule & dismissal of 'religion' rather than anything empirical that has driven you to atheism as a worldview. How can you be sure that it is not just a result of constant barrage of indoctrination from propaganda?

We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are. ~Talmud

To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease. ~Lao Tzu

 

WRONG! The theory of evolution does not assume nor presume abiogenesis, although many theists claim this.

There is all kinds of evidence to support evolution and its increasing complexity, but there is no "smoking gun". But feel free to ignore the mountain range or two of evidence from tens of thousands of scientists and their experiments and observations. that there are many unanswered questions concerning the mechanisms of genetic evolution is a given, but that isn't an excuse to dismiss it.

That isn't remotely the same thing as Atheists who dismiss scripture as evidence of anything other than a reflection of then contemporary primitive knowledge of natural history and causation of same.

 

Well, i find this to be a nit pick from someone splitting hairs. Functionally, most atheists PRESUME abiogenesis that fits within their evolutionary assumptions as well. It is a fine point to separate them, & is used more as a dodge & deflection, rather than any logical support of the worldview.

The Basic Question is HOW. How did life & the universe begin? THIS is the question that gnaws at man, & for which he has searched millennia for the answer. Evolution is a partial attempt at an explanation, but it does not, TECHNICALLY, provide the more basic question of pure origin of life. THAT more central question is assumed.. some unknown natural process started life, & evolution did the rest.. at least that is the 'theory'.

You should at least know the logic of your own belief system.. i get it that you have the ridicule & dismissal of a supernatural view of origins down, but i'm not sure you have thought through all the fine points of the naturalistic one.

Atheistic evolution ABSOLUTELY makes the presumption of abiogenesis.. you cannot have life without it. And even with evolution as a partial explanation of 'the origin of species', you do not have the initial 'spark' to get things going. It was once thought that life was much simpler.. it would start spontaneously with the right conditions. But that is a flawed assumption, & has not been borne out by experimentation. Life is MUCH MORE complex than we thought, & the mystery of HOW of life is completely unknown.

Man can neither create life, or force evolution. Both are beliefs about the universe, from a naturalistic assumption.

 

Actually, no it does not. Any assumption is entirely yours and that was my point. There is a reason that Evolution is theory and Abiogenesis is hypothesis....the two are also completely separate ideas that are not considered tied by anyone outside religious circles trying to do so in an attempt to discredit both.

Regardless, I note you bypassing the core of my post....likely because you have nothing to say in defense.

 

? I have dodged nothing. I enjoy a spirited debate, & delving into the nuances of existential philosophy. You made a few assertions that i did not reply to, but i did not think i had to rebut everything you said. You certainly do not respond to my every point.. why should you expect me to address every straw man you set up?

But regarding your central point.. that of abiogenesis NOT being an inherent part of the ToE, thas is merely a fine point, and does not address the clear CORRELATION between them. The worldview of atheism ABSOLUTELY carries with it BOTH the presumption of abiogenesis, and the ToE. It is a dodge & a nit pick to claim otherwise.

Why try to deny this? Why not own up to it? It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY, to have both of them to support your worldview. How can you believe in a Creative Cause, for the beginning of life, & claim atheism? It makes no sense for you to try to dodge & weave from this obvious connection in your worldview. I don't get why you seem unwilling to admit this. it is not a slur. it is not an aspersion on the worldview. It is a logical consequence of the belief.

 

I am beginning to wonder if some of the responders here are truly atheists, or just anti-religionists. It seems like some have not though through their atheism, or the basis for it. It is just a knee jerk reaction to religion... as the only valid alternate view. But it is intellectual delusion & prejudice to blindly cling to a view, without a thorough acceptance of all the foundational assumptions & beliefs in any world view.