1 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #312744 by panickedthumb on January 5, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Besides the logical fallacy that belief in anything comes from a belief in God... I agree that I don't believe in anything, and I don't think anyone should.

I don't believe the earth rotates around the sun, I *know* it does, because it's been scientifically proven.

I am happily married, and I don't believe my wife loves me. I'm *convinced* that she loves me. I have plenty of evidence to base this on, and while I can't find proof, I can't *know* that she loves me, the evidence points to her loving me, and therefore I am convinced of it.

So I think the premise is wrong to begin with. To me, you believe in something without evidence, you can be convinced of things without proof, and you know things that are proven.

2 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #312449 by burtonator on January 4, 2009 at 10:44 pm

How about the infinite beautify of the universe and the difficulty of the questions we have not yet answered.

Christianity has *nothing* on the deep mysteries of the universe.

3 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #311667 by ch@nce on January 3, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Classic example of Either-Or fallacy.

"Either you believe in God, or you don't believe in anything, period."

Well, there are other options I'm willing to explore. Just because they aren't yours does not mean I am wrong, nor does it make you right.

This saying is incredibly insulting as well, for the record.

4 - Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #310446 by nick_petrillo on January 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm

"Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic."

Here is the definition of "dogma" straight from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

Dogma

1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Please note that not once in the definition above is there one mention or reference to the word "fact". Dogma is completely based upon "opinion". The whole basis for atheism is the absence of proof and facts about God. It's the skepticism of someone elses opinion and reliance on the facts and proof of discoveries made by the work of humans about our natural world and the universe. Refering to atheists as dogmatic is just like saying that an atheist "believes" in gravity or that the world is round.

So to say that atheists are "dogmatic" is weak attempt to drag them down to the level of theists. That's particularly difficult because atheists happen to be standing on a mountain of evidence. Thanks for playing though.

As for agnostics....well, here we go!

Agnostic

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not

committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

If you're an agnostic, congratulations. You are Switzerland. My suggestion: Get off the bench and get in the game.

The only reasonable person is an agnostic? Being unable to commit to facts and proof is reasonable? Since when? "I have no official stance on weather or not Santa Clause is real." So you still partially think that Santa Clause is real? In that case, I'm a Nigerian prince who's trying to move a large amount of money out of my country and all I need is your banking information, pin codes, social security number, and your mother's maiden name. Please send this information to youregullible@hahaihaveyourmoney.com.

5 - A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #309889 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 5:59 pm

"A universe that follows "laws" implies a "law giver" and our ability to comprehend those laws is evidence of the divine purpose of the Universe. Or alternatively: A rational universe implies a creator."

I'm no expert on Scientific History so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't man discover the natural "laws" of the universe? Did I miss something? I don't recall them being "given" by God. Unless they were engraved on the back side of the commandments and I missed that part, I'm fairly certain that if it wasn't for scientific breakthroughs humanity wouldn't have this knowledge.

So if we discovered these "laws" and they were not "given" to us, then why? Did the creator forget to include them? Did he leave our universe before he decided to give them to us? The image in my mind is that of an abandoned child wandering an empty house who stumbles on the personal journal of his now departed guardian. Or, to be more fitting, a student of science wandering an empty lab of his professor only to stumble upon a journal full of notes on various experiments.

The other alternative is that he is present, just not communicating. Did he go deaf? Mute? Is he just being uncooperative because he's mad that we're questioning him? No, that would be melodramatic and irrational. And since a "rational" universe requires a creator, then the creator is most likely also "rational".

So either God is absent, non-existant, or unable to communicate for whatever reason. One way or the other, it doesn't seem like he's going to be much help. But boy, it beats having him around in a pissy mood like in the Old Testament.

I'm sure there are huge holes in my argument that I'm missing. Feel free to let me know. Thanks.

* Let me add quickly that the possible response (which I've heard) is that "God speaks through these men of science!" However, I don't think I recall many, if any, of these men saying that their findings were direct results from fruitful conversations with the Almighty. I'd like to hear more from all of you. Thank you.

6 - If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #309737 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 1:54 pm

"If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?"

Good point. Without religion there's absolutely no way I'd come into contact or form relationships with any of the billions of people on this planet that I might encounter through school, work, public social settings, sports, business networking organizations, etc., etc....

I'm so lonely. Hold me?

7 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #309732 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 1:43 pm

"What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?"

Nothing. Which is the way I like it. No meaning, no declaration of purpose from some stranger or some unseen force.

Freedom. To make my life the way I want it. And i want it to be filled with family, friends, and tons of inappropriate jokes.

8 - Pascal's Wager

Comment #309718 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Question: What about purgatory? I live a good life but don't believe in God, so do i get to hang out in purgatory for a few eons or what?

9 - People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #309714 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 1:06 pm

"People who've experienced God know that God exists."

Personal experience means so little in an argument. The thing which you "know" must be widely accepted by others in order to be a widely accepted "fact." To do that, you need "proof" to support your claims. Lay some of that on the table then we can start talking.

And I'm sure that somewhere out there, many people think they "know" that their significant other is at home when in reality they're with someone else. Some parent right now thinks he "knows" that his kid isn't doing drugs when in reality the kid is somewhere doing drugs. David Koresh "knew" he was sent by God to save people when in reality he became target practice for a flame throwing tank and a bunch of FBI agents.

The first two are just a couple of rudimentary examples of false experiences between humans. The third shows how things can be even more complicated and open to error when one of those variables is a being you can't detect with any one of your five senses.

But by all means, take someone elses word as fact about an unknowable entity. Just make sure you cheers each other BEFORE you drink the punch.

10 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #309709 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 31, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Elentar,

The capacity for independent ethical consideration is so atrophied that they need to be told what to do.

Hence, the term, 'sheeple' is quite apt.

11 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #309706 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 31, 2008 at 12:53 pm

A14,

Kinda reminds me of another great mind...
"The argument goes a little something like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing!'
'Well,' says Man. 'The Babel Fish is pretty much a dead giveaway, innit? It PROVES You exist, therefore You don't! QED.'
'Dear Me!' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that!' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next zebra crossing." -Douglas Adams

Miss you, Doug. :_(

12 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #309703 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Atheists don't believe in anything.

Well, define belief then. If by "belief" you mean the hope that which cannot be observed or demonstrated in any way exists in reality, then you have a point. However, as "belief" also encompasses KNOWLEDGE, as in, "My belief of the properties of electrical current", then you're just abusing semantics.
This, I believe:
I believe that there is hope for our species.
I believe in a thing called love.
I believe I'll have another.
I believe that the educational potential of our mass media is grossly underused.
I believe in that which can be observed and/or demonstrated.
I believe, in general, we are genuinely good. It's the pockets of idiocy that gain so much influence that's holding us back.

I believe everyone has a choice, and I believe forfeiting that choice in deference to a vain hope that which can neither be observed or demonstrated is downright foolish.

This, I believe.

13 - Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #309697 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 12:30 pm

"If you don't believe in God, you must not believe in anything."

Completely false. It's New Years Eve! I believe I'll have a few drinks tonight and tomorrow I'll make up a list of things that I'll never address.

14 - If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #309692 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 12:13 pm

This argument totally makes sense. I'm completely depressed because I don't wake up at the butt crack of dawn on my days off to have some stranger tell me that I'm a flawed sinner whose life isn't in his own hands. I'm even more broken up that i'm not giving my money away to some fraud in suit with a shark toothed grin. Furthermore, I don't know how i'll be able to cope with the fact that I have a wide variety of friends because i'm open minded and don't make snap judgements of people based on some archaic, vauge entries in books that are hearsay at best.

Oh, however will I live?

15 - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #309676 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:57 am

"The truth is that Atheism is as much the cause of atrocities as Religion is. Which is to say, not at all. But you insist on blaming the power hungry's use of Religion to fuel their drive as some sort of indictment on religious people. Pointing out the Stalin's and Hitler's is just a way of turning a flawed argument back on you."

So The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials and countless other acts of mass murder and persecution in the name of religion weren't fueled by religion? Hmm, interesting. I've just learned something new. Thank you.

16 - You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #309663 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:49 am

I can't prove that the person who's responsible for this argument is a moron. Oh wait....

17 - Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #309652 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:37 am

"Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives."

Which religion does this? Did I not get the memo?

There are countless religions and variations. Which one do we rely on? Riddle me that, Bible Man.

18 - What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #309645 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:33 am

"What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?"

Standing is better exercise. You live longer.

Didn't this get covered in TGD? Something about altruism? And isn't there a saying that goes something like "It's not what you know but who you know"? I'm fairly sure that it implies knowing people and having them think your a good person. You help them, they help you, and everyone makes out okay.

On the other hand, being a jerk and "burning bridges" is a good way to make sure you don't go far in life. The opposite sex won't like you which leads to not being able to mate which leads to.....well, you see where I'm going with this.

But hey, what do i know?

19 - The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #309637 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:20 am

Defeated with a simple "copy & paste" procedure.

http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm

George Carlin rips up the nonsensical claims of religion in true style.

20 - The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #309631 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:14 am

"The US is (or was founded as) a Christian Nation."

I distinctly remember G.W. Bush calling our efforts in the middle east a "crusade" and saying "he takes his orders directly from God". Seeing as how things have turned out, I think that should change.

21 - What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #309624 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:10 am

"What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?"

I'm the person you tried to brainwash into handing over my hard earned cash so you could have a jumbo-tron in your cathedral. And no, i don't feel like making a donation today.

22 - Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #309621 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 11:08 am

I'm willing to concede this point. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to believe that someone heard a preacher making unbelievably stupid claims about an invisible man in the sky and decided to question it.

We still haven't found the invisible man in the sky.

23 - How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #309610 by nick_petrillo on December 31, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #11. What he said. As long as the scientific community keeps digging up fossils, creationists will ever be pointing there fingers at the gaps screaming "Ha, I told you so!"

Never mind that there are mountains of evidence on either side of the gaps.

24 - Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #308485 by samexp on December 30, 2008 at 2:31 am

Being a Hindu , I was on the lookout for a critique of Hinduism from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris but could not find any. I'm still looking. I do not have many points to do a rebuttal on ingrained beliefs in Hinduism because they are quite philosophical and rational beliefs.
I have not read the Gita or the Vedas or the Upanishads. We all know that Karma is the fundamental guiding principle espoused in the Gita. In this aspect Buddhism and Hindusim are in agreement. I do however have an issue with the concept of rebirth and reincarnation because it seems to be a way get out of jail ticket to explain sorrows and miseries that befall humans. So , if the question is - why should a God who is kind and just and fair cause suffering and inflict miseries on humans who do not deserve it , the answer is clear: It's because of what they did in their previous birth. We are being punished for deeds we did in our previous birth and and hence it is perfectly reasonable to expect us to undergo hardships in this birth. I must say that this philosophy causes the lives of many people to become bearable.
This belief in rebirth is so strong that is a school of thought called Nadi Shastra (http://www.naadi-shastra.com/). These folks claim on their website that there are recorded facts about you and your life, your past, present and future.I know of friends who have had their past life analyzed and swear by the accuracy of the predictions.
I find it quite difficult to argue with the concept of Karma and also re-incarnation. Keen to know some thoughts from Richard.

25 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #305790 by phil rimmer on December 23, 2008 at 3:30 pm

EB

let's call it "Life is a party," for sake of argument.

No. Let's not..... But your point is still clear :-)

26 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #305776 by Eric Blair on December 23, 2008 at 3:09 pm

We've covered this before, of course, but atheism has nothing to say about the meaning of life including whether life may have meaning or not. However, we can infer that atheism would "say" that if life does have meaning it has nothing to do with God or gods.

Nothing here precludes individual atheists, or a group of them, from concluding that life has meaning and presenting the case for a certain kind of meaning - let's call it "Life is a party," for sake of argument. But they would do so as "Life is a party-ists," not atheists.

EB

27 - People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #304749 by credim on December 22, 2008 at 3:07 am

The God of personal experience that people profess to know is usually promoted through their belief that they were personally helped by God to overcome addiction or some problem in their life.
It is reasonable to ask these people would you not have reached the same point by some other means and also haven't non-believers overcome such similar trials and tribulations without a knowledge of God.
It can be a mystery why an addict decides to clean up. It can take superhuman effort to break out of a cycle of dependency and people can do it for no obvious apparent reason. Some put it down to divine intervention and others put it down to willpower. A personal God that hears ones prayers and responds may bring comfort to some but it is highly subjective.
There is so much we simply don't know about the mind that realistically will never be fully understood.

28 - Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #304039 by decius on December 20, 2008 at 6:48 am

Comment #304033 by tamizhmarai.r


You may find these articles interesting. Even if they may contain conflicting notions, they show how idiotic the ID misrepresentation is.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Animal-brains-hard-wired-to-recognize-predators-foot-movements--Queens-study-suggests-2550-1/


http://www.grandin.com/references/genetics.html


http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease20061218/index.html

29 - Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #304037 by decius on December 20, 2008 at 6:07 am

Comment #304033 by tamizhmarai.r

Well, the abstract boils down to the usual god-of-the-gaps canard. It is also arguing partly from incredulity and partly from ignorance.

'Modern evolutionists' explain phenomenon X with a set of incomplete theories - I cannot believe such theories because phenomenon X is very complicated - We don't know all what causes X - Therefore goddidit.

Notice that it doesn't even hint at positive evidence for design of animal behaviour. Even if the theories of 'Modern evolutionists' were wrong (which they aren't), that wouldn't make ID right by default.

By the way, I am not an expert, but there are tonnes of empirical evidence indicating both how some complex behavioural patterns get hard-wired into the brains of the newborns, and how some other are learnt through imitation of the adult.
Google for the relevant papers.

30 - Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #304033 by tamizhmarai.r on December 20, 2008 at 5:35 am

Hello all,

This is my first comment on this site. I am an atheist. I am to attend a conference on science and spirituality and was perusing the abstracts of the talks of the speakers. I produce here one of the abstracts of a talk titled "Programmes of the Living World: Extraordinary Animal Behaviours that Defy Evolution ".

Abstract:
How do animals know what, when and how to do something? Of course, they have some kind of “programme” or “software” in their minds from the time of their birth. Modern-day evolutionists say that every innate physical and mental ability has developed step by step, by genetic mutations and natural selection. But inborn instincts are sometimes very complicated and these “behaviour chains” probably could not emerge by “gradual development”, as the incomplete forms of a complex behaviour are often not advantageous for the living being. In this way, inborn instincts support intelligent design.

Could anyone give me debate points to argue against this theory? Of course, it would be difficult to come up with counterarguments given only the abstract, nevertheless any light shed on this issue would be helpful. Thanks.

31 - What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #303687 by credim on December 19, 2008 at 4:41 am

Funnily enough Captain Mandate I fell the other way. As a scientist I rejected religious orthodoxy on most issues. Again my upbringing was mostly ritual and lip service.

It was my deepening scientific understanding of the smallest speck of human life, the cytoblast, that made me re-evaluate MY orthodoxy. I became scientifically, rationally and ethically convinced of the pro-life position on abortion.

Two personal observations: 1) I was asking the wrong questions, sometimes life challenges you for the answer.
2) I was asking the wrong people. There is a certain comforting reassurance in sharing ones beliefs with unquestioning like-minded friends. Funnily enough it was a conversation with a politician on personal convictions that gave me an answer to a question I didn't know I'd been asking.

32 - How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #303684 by Cluebot on December 19, 2008 at 4:28 am

Where did you crib this from, credim?

Also, paragraphs. Use them. :)

33 - How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #303683 by credim on December 19, 2008 at 4:22 am

Within our own solar system we can see a vast array of enviromental conditions some of which can't sustain any hydrocarbon lifeform and as far as we can make out don't sustain any other type of lifeform either. While it may be egocentric to believe we are somehow special it is rational to believe that our solar system is similar in composition to the rest of the universe ( and we know this from our observations ) it is also rational to expect that chemically hydrocarbon lifeforms may be the only possible form of life that can exist.
By 'irreducible complexity' I don't mean the ID concept for scientific discoveries in evolutionary processes that haven't been discovered but the vast leap that exists between living forms and non living matter. While evolution will be able to explain how a living organism can mutate and evolve it is a huge 'unscientific' leap to accept that a complex primordial soup of organic compounds can 'spring' into life because the processes of life are not arbitrary but show a remarkable striving to survive even in the merest of living forms.
Even after the success of the genome project the best scientists can do at the moment is strip out non life critical material in simple living forms they can't YET build one from the componenets. Its analagous to stripping all the superflous components off a car so that it still drives but lacking the understanding of the combution engine to be able to build a car from scratch.
All current scientific breakthroughs around RNA and DNA seem to me to be confirming this widening chasm between living and nonliving forms rather than bridging that 'irreducibly complex' gap.

34 - People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #303338 by john alexander on December 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm

People who've experienced God know that God exists.

If someone "has" experienced God he'd be quite stupid not to know God does exist. I think the problem lies in the statement and the line should be something like: "People who "believe" they've experienced God, "believe" they know God exists." That makes sense and is true, but says nothing about the existence or non existence of God.

35 - Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #302031 by CaptainMandate on December 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

Hinduism and Buddhism may not be as bad as the Abrahamic religions right now but all religion is open to the abuse of dogma.

Arguably they are not as bad simply because they are minority. In some parts of indonesia muslims feel oppressed by buddhists.

Faith is the tool that can be used to control people's motives without question. Just because they may be relatively peaceful doesn't make it OK. christianity didn't hurt anyone until it was put in the hands of the powerful.

Anything that appeals to the authority of dead writers is a dangerous weapon. Islam, the religion of peace, is an example of a weapon being used. Christianity, the religion of forgiveness has been responsible for some shocking deeds.

Refering to them as more sophisticated is an utter red herring, when religion turns nasty, its message gets simplified

36 - What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #302029 by CaptainMandate on December 16, 2008 at 8:57 am

I had a catholic upbringing and a comprehensive schooling. I had instruction on what the bibble means and it all was meaningless to me which made me assume I wasn't very clever.

I would ask questions and feel stupid for asking them.

I went to school and had an interest in science, I sometimes felt stupid because I didn't ask questions.

I can question religion because religion was incapable of answering the questions I came up with when I was a child with no life experience so now I'm an adult who is still capable and willing to learn more believe I am qualified to question anything that I choose.

Religion just happens to be one philasophical phenomena which is incapable of providing any answers.

That's its weakness, not mine.

37 - Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #302028 by credim on December 16, 2008 at 8:55 am

What most westeners understand of Hinduism and Buddhism is quite trivial and superficial. For a proper understanding of Buddhist philosphy read Essentials of Buddhism by the Dalai Lama.
Hinduism still has hangovers of shamanistic belief with its various Gods and its fatalistic acceptance of an imperfect world.
What appears sophistication to the uninitiated becomes contradiction when looked at more closely.

38 - How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #302025 by CaptainMandate on December 16, 2008 at 8:43 am

For me Douglas Adams answered this question the best with his analogy of a puddle being amazed that the hole in the ground is exactly the right shape to contain it.

Life, as we are constantly discovering, seems capable of arising within a vast spectrum of environmantal parameters. the question is very egocentric, we think how perfect the world is for US when there are extremophiles on this planet that may well thrive on the moons mentioned by steve Zara above.

the anthropic principle is the only way to approach the subject. here we are as a part of the universe musing on its creation when there may be parts of the universe where under no circumstances we could survive with another form of intelligence developing and looking out thinking "why was it all made so perfect for us"

another way too consider the futility of the question is to come up with a figure to represent the chances of us existing (say one in a google) then rolling a google sided dice and trying to come up with a reason it lands on the side it does

39 - What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #302022 by credim on December 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

Even some of the doctors of the catholic church questioned their faith at times. Recently it was revealed that Mother Teresa privately had at various times serious doubts about her faith. Even one of the founding fathers of Christianity, St Paul, persecuted the early Christians before accepting the faith so it would seem that if God is a God of freewill then religion has to be robust enough to withstand honest scrutiny.

40 - How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #302021 by Quetzalcoatl on December 16, 2008 at 8:35 am

Credim-

On the other hand Venus and Mars are not suitable for widespread Earth like lifeforms and neither have developed their own strands of life yet have been in existence as long as Earth with similar building blocks.

Neither appear to currently have life. However, there is a possibility that life existed there in the past. Both Mars and Venus would have been habitable before Earth.

It appears we are missing a link between complex organic compounds and an organism that wills itself to live, ie strives for survival. There is also the irreducible complexity argument that points to a glaring gap in our current scientific knowledge. There is also the principle of entropy which philosophically seems counter to the complexity of life. Although life could be a localised phenomenon that doesn't greatly disturb entropy in the grand scheme of the universe.

What gap is the "irreducible complexity" argument pointing to, exactly? Entropy does not contradict the progression of life on Earth from simplicity to increased complexity.

41 - How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #302017 by credim on December 16, 2008 at 8:27 am

There is a certain tautology to that argument, it is similar to the tautological 'why is there something instead of nothing'. We have to start from somewhere and accepting matter as real and imperishable is a useful point until we discover something more fundamental. Likewise the conditions are perfect for current life forms to flourish here but if they were less perfect perhaps there would be other lifeforms more suitably adapted. Although it is valid given our starting point on matter that we address why is it configured in such a precise way that life forms exist instead of just inorganic matter.

On the other hand Venus and Mars are not suitable for widespread Earth like lifeforms and neither have developed their own strands of life yet have been in existence as long as Earth with similar building blocks. However from our observations of the universe we are able to witness that much of the matter we can see is similar to our own so hydrocarbon lifeforms are the most likely out there too. In fact the latest research still seems to point to finding traces of hydrocarbon based lifeforms. This in itself may point to the origin of life in our solar system as coming from beyond our solar system because given the different life cycles of our neighbouring planets would it be possible for similar lifeforms to spontaneously appear or is it more likely that they came to our solar system concurrently in a particular developmental state and flourished or foundered based on the planetary conditions they met. The most likely source of this primitive life is asteroids.

Since the planets follow a pattern roughly based on their density it is not implausible to believe that there are many similar solar systems in the universe with the same basic materials and similar planetary layouts. So life may not be a unique phenomenon but a natural consequence of certain physical and chemical properties. Although if this is simply the case why can't even the simplest of lifeforms be created scientifically. It appears we are missing a link between complex organic compounds and an organism that wills itself to live, ie strives for survival. There is also the irreducible complexity argument that points to a glaring gap in our current scientific knowledge. There is also the principle of entropy which philosophically seems counter to the complexity of life. Although life could be a localised phenomenon that doesn't greatly disturb entropy in the grand scheme of the universe.

42 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301897 by credim on December 16, 2008 at 3:02 am

Man’s dominion over animals is quite logical. Humans are the most intelligent lifeforms and can control their environment to such a degree that humans can live and adapt in wider extremes than any other animal. We have the ability to cure minor, and major ailments, that kill off (or weed out the infirm in) other species.
People should not be horrified to discover that humans are ‘animal’s but I would think that most people, theist and atheist alike, would still believe we are more than just an animal. Our self-awareness of ourselves and our environment and our ability to reflect is not shared by any other animal.
You make a strange point about man’s place in the food chain. Why would anyone, except someone lacking reason, endanger themselves by jumping in with sharks or bears' It is a distinctly unhuman thing to do. We have evolved greater intelligence than either a shark or a bear and use that to our advantage. In the same way sharks or bears use their natural abilities to their advantage.
I would have to say that your view that ‘most evangelical circles’ have contempt for all other forms of life is a very narrow eurocentric position. If you have travelled in Asia you will see even greater contempt for all lifeforms where dogs are caged like battery hens and then beaten to death ‘to improve their meat’, eating live monkey brain’s (now thankfully banned), Japanese whaling ‘research’, game poaching in Africa, the list of mistreatment is endless and I would contend European animal husbandry issues are less endemic.
It is a hollow argument to present one atheist, even David Attenborough, against ‘many theists’ who believe it is a God given right to consume. I’m not sure what information you have to back that up. Most theists in the developing and third world, who on average produce less than 2 tonne of carbon annually, never had the opportunity to jet around the world like Sir David marvelling at its carbon depleting wonders or watch these wonders on plasma screens as we Westerners make our way through 10 tonnes or more of carbon.
Again I think the theists you refer to are your more local neighbours who obviously don’t practise in public what they appear to preach.
I think your point about your cats or a tiger killing human strike at the heart of your loathing of humankind. Why would it be worth ‘saving’ the planet and sacrifing humanity for that. Who are we saving the planet for' I don’t think the animals would thank us for it. It is highly likely at some future time that humanity will suffer some calamitous life threatening event; an asteroid strike, a solar flare, an epedemic. I would prefer humanity to take more care of the planet because we have the intelligence to see the destruction we cause but it is actually quite a natural animalistic response to use as many resources as are available to us, every other animal does the same. It is actually a superhuman trait to use our intelligence to plan ahead, strongly linked to the evolution of culture, leisure time and religious sentiment. (Read the excellent Leisure The Basis Of Culture, by Josef Pieper)
A truly Christian perspective as advanced by Sr Prejean, who ministers to inmates on death row, would be that all human life is worthy of respect and that a person’s humanity should not be dismissed or categorised for the worst thing they have done. Everyone is deserving of a chance of redemption, to right their wrongs. Shooting the tiger killer is an emotional reaction that actually solves nothing. It is equivalent to the transportation of convicts for minor offenses in previous centuries which is now rightly condemned as an affront to human rights and natural justice.

43 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301700 by Goldy on December 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Credim

Rather I would say one can be an atheist and care about the planet or display other outwardly altuistic behaviours. But it is also equally acceptable to be an atheist and decide to be a complete hedonist. My point is that an atheist can behave irresponsibly without any guilt of divine retribution for a life badly lived

True. But then, so can the religious. I believe one can ask for forgivess if a Christian :-) All you have to do is repent at the last minute...

44 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301689 by Vaal on December 15, 2008 at 11:50 am

111. Comment #301655 by credim

Credim, I do apologise for my heated reply to you, but your attitude did get right up my goat.

Now, lets get back to the point I believe you are trying to make, that atheists care less about the environment as they are only concerned about the span of their own lives. If they are not to be “punished” by a despotic supernatural tyrant, they will accordingly care less for the world around them.

As you probably realise already, atheists only have one thing in common. They don’t believe in God(s). There probably are hedonists, and wasters in the atheist camp, as there are in the theist camp, but I have found that most atheists I have come into contact with do care about the world around them a great deal, because they realise that ALL life is precious, that the world is a finite resource, and that they are not somehow divorced from the natural world but are part of it, and have a shared history with all life on this planet.

When I see most theists recoil in horror when told that they are an “animal”, I find their arrogance and stupidity reprehensible yet ironically comical.

The Bible is very clear about mans “dominion” over everything living on the planet, and I have found that point of view and contempt of all other forms of life endemic in most evangelical circles. As for being top of the food chain, I suggest you jump in the water with a great white shark, or share a cage with a Tiger or Grizzly bear, and you will soon find out exactly where you are in the natural food chain.

Lets have a look at some of these atheists you are talking about, and you will find that many great naturalists, biologists, wildlife presenters are atheists. People like Sir David Attenborough and his loving transcripts of the beauty of life on Earth are an inspiration. These are people that care about our small planet, and invest a great deal of time, money and energy to preserve the natural world, as opposed to many theists who believe it is a God given right for them and their never-ending offspring to consume at any cost, guilt free.

after all what is the point in saving the planet is only for the non-humans. I think most people in a critical situation, ie a burning building, would tend to save a human life first before saving an animal

Well, unlike you, I don’t have this generic love of humanity. It would be a shame to see the extinction of mankind, but perhaps it may be best for the planet before we turn it into a lifeless dust bowl. Perhaps the emergence of intelligence is nature’s greatest mistake.

I would also assure you without any doubt that if it came to rescuing my cats from the house fire and the scum that ransacked and burgled my house, then I know exactly who would be rescued.

I would also have no problem with shooting a person who was hunting a Tiger for fun, and regard that as a duty to humanity.

45 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301683 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 15, 2008 at 10:53 am

Lise,

"You shoulda got 'im a tiiiieeee."
-Cat

;) Nicely obscure screenname, btw.

46 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301676 by MaxD on December 15, 2008 at 10:32 am

Thanks folks

47 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301671 by Diacanu on December 15, 2008 at 10:11 am

*Applauds MaxD*

You have been missed, friend.
:)

48 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301670 by bendigeidfran on December 15, 2008 at 10:10 am

That was rather good MaxD.

49 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301669 by MaxD on December 15, 2008 at 10:03 am

Credim, you raise an interesting, if somewhat flawed point. Allow me to point out why I think it is wrong.

If life has only a meaning that each individual assigns themselves why should anyone follow the current well meaning planet saving carbon fottprint junk.

This assumes I think that people value only themselves. This seems to be wholly against our nature. Humans are many things but, unattached, unconnected rationality machines they are not. We are not Vulcans, and attach meaning based largely on emotional responses to various goals, stimuli etc. So for a start there seem to be very human limits on the kind of meaning we find valuable. The kinds of things that make sense to people as meaningful, family, friendship, safety, stablity have specific emotional outcomes that drive us to repeat the things that appeal, and limit the things that do not. Most of the environmental ethical stance derives from simply seeing the problem through the eyes of offspring, future generations etc and suspecting that the problem isn't just theirs but your own. Humans do have a deep interest in future generations particularly ones that fall in their own genetic lineage.
So, point 1. Human nature seems to impose an inclination toward certain meanings anyway.

Saving the planet may be a concern for some but for many simply eeking out a minimal quality of life is a priority. In the full knowledge that life is what you make of it then any individual is entitled to recognise the absurdity of someone cutting back on their carbon output in Berlin while slum children in Bogota literally scrape a living sifting through rubbish in municipal waste tips.

I think this is a bit of a whine. And a totally wrong view of why it is important for the compartitively well-to-do Berliner to cut back. Generally the pressure industrial nations put on the rest of the world through consumption is one of the things that keeps (through various processes, political and economical) third world countries in straits as it were.
I actually think here that athiesm helps rather than hinders. An appreciation for the life (after all this is the only one you get) tends to spur more of those feelings of human solidarity, and desire for substative change. Religious faith can cause people to make soothing noises but does it really foster an appreciation for the tragedy of suffering and a fierce desire for its end? I don't think that it does. Most religious dogma has a ready excuse to not worry about suffering. If one comports oneself with something the religious call dignity and faith, then one can expect big rewards.
Imagine the surprise eh?
Point 2. Atheism underscores the preciousness, and precariousness of life, while religious meaning and dogma make light of it. Assuming a pointless existence can make us look more trenchantly at human suffering. This seems an important foundation.

What is the point of saving the planet for more greedy western parastites quaffing lattes while Colombian children starve. As an individual who only has three score and ten years to live a perfectly rational response to the overwhelming injustices of the world is to recognise that there is little you can do so you might as well make the most of what you have.
I don't understand 'Quetzalcoatl' why this isn't a rational response.

Is it rational to trample over the rights of those around us, to impede the expression of another's autonomy? Should one do this knowing that it invites the same behavior to be directed at you whence tables do a bit of turning? This seems to be what youa re saying? We all know what it is like to have such impositions placed on us, and we are perfectly capable of imagining more serious impositions.

Complaining that the west is late to the table when it comes to these things is certainly a valid point. But claiming that it is simply so we can go on drinking our lattes while others suffer simply isn't the case.

The point about meaning and making your own isn't necessarily in "man I gotta get mine before I go" mindset. The question is about ultimate meaning as droned on about by people concerned with that sort of thing. "What is the meaning of life?" To me this question at its heart has not real substance. Ultimately life is simply a product of a process Dawkins summed rather nicely when refered to life as "the survival of the stable." A great deal of subtlety concerning life is lost in this truism. The point I think is that there very likely isn't an ultimate one. All we have is a point made palatable by our nature, and one that the majority of humans seem to be in broad agreement on.
Point 3. Once people see each other as humans and not simply obstacles, human nature takes over somewhat and seems to limit the kind of treatment we are willing to accept for others. This kind of thing damages acceptance of the status quo. An ultimate purpose (what is the purpose of life) is not necessary once humans see each other as fellow humans.

That of course doesn't mean problems are solved and that human nature carries us into a new future of utopian bliss. Far from it. It is just a necessary first step. Human nature has darker sides too, but they are often brought out by the sectarian and tribal essence of religion.

50 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301666 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 9:55 am

Diacanu

Nothing more than that it became evolutionary advantagous to be altruistic. Protecting kin got extended to protecting humans.

There's no question altruism has been extraordinarily successful in propagating our species.

Works better than theistically mandated morality for me.

51 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301664 by Diacanu on December 15, 2008 at 9:52 am

Peacebeaponme-

It is interesting to ask why you don't want to be an asshole though isn't it?

I suppose.

Got any theories?

52 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301662 by bendigeidfran on December 15, 2008 at 9:50 am

I'm altruistic for selfish reasons. I'm still bad really you see.

53 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301661 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 9:48 am

Diacanu - you are correct of course.

It is interesting to ask why you don't want to be an asshole though isn't it?

54 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301660 by Diacanu on December 15, 2008 at 9:46 am

*Shrug*
Fear of Hell never kept me in line.

I strive not to be an asshole, because I just don't want to be an asshole.

That simple.

Don't know why it has to be justified more complexly than that.

55 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301659 by severalspeciesof on December 15, 2008 at 9:45 am

111. Comment #301655 by credim

I would agree that if everyone took a selfish view of their existence society wouldn't last long but then on an individual basis there is nothing compelling anyone to act in a manner that ultimately suits others.

I disagree...

Evolution has provided us with a sense of morality, the Golden Rule being one very powerful aspect/result of that evolution...

It has done so because looking out for others has better prospects for the individual (it's counter-intuitive, but it's true)...

Think about it...

56 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301658 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 9:42 am

credim

on an individual basis there is nothing compelling anyone to act in a manner that ultimately suits others.

...apart from our emotions, which you seemed to agree with in the first bit of that post.

57 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301657 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 9:40 am

credim

My point is that an atheist can behave irresponsibly without any guilt of divine retribution for a life badly lived.

Its a rather banal, worthless point though, no?

For instance, you do not live in fear that Zeus will stike you down with lightening do you?

(btw - you seem to be confusing guilt and fear of divine retribution there: theists can be just as guilt free, and only be good because of fear of punishment.)

58 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301655 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 9:36 am

Quetzalcoatl & Vaal, i hope I have spelt 'vaal' correctly because you seemed to have trouble with mine.

Fairness, equality and responsibility to take care of the planet are altruistically fine but they are not necessary qualifications for someone to define themselves as an athiest.

Rather I would say one can be an atheist and care about the planet or display other outwardly altuistic behaviours. But it is also equally acceptable to be an atheist and decide to be a complete hedonist. My point is that an atheist can behave irresponsibly without any guilt of divine retribution for a life badly lived.

I think Vaal you'll find that your interpretation about man's dominion over the animals in the bible is not a widely accepted Christian view but it definitely makes clear that man is the top of the food chain. From any simple protection of one's one species viewpoint that would be shared by most theists and non-theists alike. after all what is the point in saving the planet is only for the non-humans. I think most people in a critical situation, ie a burning building, would tend to save a human life first before saving an animal.

I would agree that if everyone took a selfish view of their existence society wouldn't last long but then on an individual basis there is nothing compelling anyone to act in a manner that ultimately suits others.

59 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301648 by CaptainMandate on December 15, 2008 at 9:25 am

credim

you're utterly wrong of course but arguably you have a point in as much as if we were to become an entirely selfish species without any religion, we would be the do-gooders that look after our planet. It's only when you can fully comprehend what a meaningless individual you are and simply a vehicle for your genes that you make the decision to try to preserve the environment your genes are to exist in.

many atheists are scientists and vice versa, most scientists are aware that the true value of their work will never be realised in their lifetime and are grateful for those who've gone before and left us their work.

many atheists are parents and grandparents, many on this site in fact and you really don't need to believe in an afterlife to want to ensure a good life for your children after you die.

your attitude of sodding the consequences is actually more akin to a religious viewpoint where an almighty power is in charge and you have no personal responsibility. I doubt very much that you are truly an atheist but of course i could be wrong, you may just have social issues or you may be trying to be confrontational for some reason but I've yet to meet an atheist who is motivated by such greed

60 - If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #301647 by Quetzalcoatl on December 15, 2008 at 9:24 am

Credim-

It is clear form some of the posts on this website that many contributors are too young to know what needs they will have when they age. It is best to foster these while you are in the full of your health otheriwse when you age nobody will want to know you.

Wise words that a young whipper-snapper like myself will do my very best to pay heed to.

61 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301646 by Mark Jones on December 15, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #301627 by credim

Nice seasonal sentiments!

We've evolved into moral creatures, so we (mostly) feel that we should try do as much good as possible. It's true though that, like music appreciation, some people seem to have a different understanding of morals than others; like you, apparently?

But because this is a clear *thinking* oasis, folk here like to *think* about their purpose, and the state of the planet, and how suffering in the world can be reduced, and in their country, and in their village. Rational folk can figure out that they can make their own purpose, and that co-operation is a better strategy than selfishness in the long term. A rational person can *think* about these things, and doesn't need to abdicate responsibility for thinking to some mythical higher being, or ancient script.

62 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301644 by Prankster on December 15, 2008 at 9:22 am

Skimming this thread so I'll just post my observation-someone may have said something similar so I'll apologise in advance? Surely "the meaning of life" and "it's purpose" are 2 completely different concepts.

Being an atheist means a total disbelief in god(s). That's all, there's no purpose to being an atheist, just a fundemental (if that's the right expression)acknowledgement that god doesn't exist.

THE "Meaning of Life"? The meaning in your life is the one YOU give it.

It seems to me, with the way many religites or theists raise this question or ones like it, not only is the theist incorrect in that atheist thinking is impaired or lacking in some way but it would appear that when you look at the actual examine the question, It's the theist who is deficient in his reasoning . Maybe that is why they ask these questions, to hide and to cover up their own lack of faculties or deficiencies?

Just a thought...

63 - A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #301642 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 9:17 am

VincentStasik, Mr savage's contention that one lives forever is a rather silly sop to faltering religionists.
It is a simple scientific fact that matter is neither created or destroyed but only converted from one form to another. A dead body decomposes into its elemental forms. Other organic matter grows in the remians but this doesn't mean that the dead life-form 'lives' forever. The corpse is no longer a functioning living being, no prosaic rubbish about light being emitted to the end of the universe takes away from that. Incidentally the light being reflected into the universe is quickly absorbed by dust in space, hence the dark sky at night!
Some athiests simply can't grow up and face that this is all they have, they don't 'live on' in the memories of anyone else because they die too. Can anyone say with certainty what Mozart looked like' Will any digital image taken today survive in some uncorrupted format for 200 or 300 years. When you're dead, that's it, you assume room temperature. Now accept it and get on with it.

64 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301635 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 9:07 am

credim

Rationally, you're kind of right. Why should anybody do anything to help?

Trouble is, we seem to be emotional and altruistic creatures, and this gives us a desire to help others (including future generations).

65 - If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #301634 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 9:05 am

It is worth fostering relationships on which you can draw as an atheist. Everyone ages and at some point will be in need of someone elses care and attention therefore outside of faith communities it is worth ingratiating yourself in as many organisations in which you can make contacts for support and companionship. The best ones are caring organisations that are non-denominational, in that way you get a level of human interaction and support without the knobs-on religion.

It is clear form some of the posts on this website that many contributors are too young to know what needs they will have when they age. It is best to foster these while you are in the full of your health otheriwse when you age nobody will want to know you.

66 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301633 by Vaal on December 15, 2008 at 9:05 am

Credim, or is that Cretin

No, actually it is the Bible that tells humanity that the world is his to rape to his hearts content, that he has "dominion" over all the other animals on the planet, so can drive them to extinction with no conscience, and that he should breed without measure till he turns the planet into Easter Island.

So, the greatest legacy of God's chosen hominid is ultimately self-destruction. Still, perhaps he will have better luck with the next species that arises with any semblance of intelligence.

No, I am an evil self indulgent atheist according to your microscopic delusional brain, but I care about the environment, and I care about the planet even after I am no longer living. We have a responsibility to take care of the planet, to husband it correctly, preserve it and the other creatures that we share the planet with, and you have the nerve to castigate any of us about ethics.

67 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301632 by Quetzalcoatl on December 15, 2008 at 9:05 am

Credim-

If life has only a meaning that each individual assigns themselves why should anyone follow the current well meaning planet saving carbon fottprint junk.
Saving the planet may be a concern for some but for many simply eeking out a minimal quality of life is a priority. In the full knowledge that life is what you make of it then any individual is entitled to recognise the absurdity of someone cutting back on their carbon output in Berlin while slum children in Bogota literally scrape a living sifting through rubbish in municipal waste tips.
What is the point of saving the planet for more greedy western parastites quaffing lattes while Colombian children starve. As an individual who only has three score and ten years to live a perfectly rational response to the overwhelming injustices of the world is to recognise that there is little you can do so you might as well make the most of what you have.
I don't understand 'Quetzalcoatl' why this isn't a rational response.

Because your response makes no sense. If everyone thought that way then things would never change. There are certain principles like fairness and equality that might be salient here.

PS- why are you putting my user name in quote marks? I think everyone is aware that it's not my actual name, you know.

68 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301630 by Brian English on December 15, 2008 at 9:01 am

I don't understand 'Quetzalcoatl' why this isn't a rational response.

If you don't understand why this is rational then perhaps you have no concept of fairness or justic. Anyway....

69 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301629 by sunbeamforjesus on December 15, 2008 at 9:00 am

Why should atheism have anything to say on the meaning or purpose of life?We are simply non believers in a series of myths.We are trying to learn the truth of our existence in our present time,past and possibly as far as we can predict with our current knowledge,future.This we do without reference to theism,which we reject as inherently unbelieveable given the knowledge and insight we have accumulated thus far.Our purpose is to continue to learn and to make the most of our short lives.Isn't that enough?

70 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301628 by God fearing Atheist on December 15, 2008 at 8:59 am

#301617 by credim

Carefull! In the "new atheist religion" it is mandatory to drown people like you at birth.

71 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301627 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 8:59 am

If life has only a meaning that each individual assigns themselves why should anyone follow the current well meaning planet saving carbon fottprint junk.
Saving the planet may be a concern for some but for many simply eeking out a minimal quality of life is a priority. In the full knowledge that life is what you make of it then any individual is entitled to recognise the absurdity of someone cutting back on their carbon output in Berlin while slum children in Bogota literally scrape a living sifting through rubbish in municipal waste tips.
What is the point of saving the planet for more greedy western parastites quaffing lattes while Colombian children starve. As an individual who only has three score and ten years to live a perfectly rational response to the overwhelming injustices of the world is to recognise that there is little you can do so you might as well make the most of what you have.
I don't understand 'Quetzalcoatl' why this isn't a rational response.

72 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301624 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 8:51 am

Credim

Atheism is belief that there is no god so there are only earthly consequenses for any actions so it really is a license to use and abuse as many resources as you can.

Well, not really. Society steps in and creates laws to stop people doing things we don't like.

73 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301622 by Diacanu on December 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

Credim-

Wow...glad not to know you IRL.
People like you are what makes life unpleasant.

74 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301621 by Peacebeuponme on December 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

Credim

Leave the ethics up to people qualified to do that

and who would these people be?

75 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301620 by Quetzalcoatl on December 15, 2008 at 8:44 am

Credim-

Atheism is belief that there is no god so there are only earthly consequenses for any actions so it really is a license to use and abuse as many resources as you can. You have no one to answer too so why care' The planet is some do-gooders concern. Your duty is to make the most of your three score and ten years.

You're kidding, I hope? Because if you're not, I vehemently disagree.

76 - What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #301619 by mixmastergaz on December 15, 2008 at 8:43 am

I'm always gratified to read the posts on this site. I've learned a great deal of profound and illuminating things. It's great that there's a popular and intellectually fulfilling site spreading ideas and information. For example, I've just discovered that cows will shit on your back if you're not careful. It was about the only thing on this thread that I was able to understand, but I'm grateful for the warning.

77 - What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #301617 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 8:39 am

Nothing. Now get on with it.

Atheism is belief that there is no god so there are only earthly consequenses for any actions so it really is a license to use and abuse as many resources as you can. You have no one to answer too so why care' The planet is some do-gooders concern. Your duty is to make the most of your three score and ten years.

78 - What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #301613 by antcowan on December 15, 2008 at 8:27 am

I like David Bain's view on this.

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring' Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

79 - Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #301611 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives. So what'

I can't make tea in a toaster either. So what'

Why should one expect science to tell us something that is beyond its realm. Evolution can't tell us why the first lifeform developed but we know that a lifeform did develop so science should work with what its got. There is enough there to keep them busy. Leave the ethics up to people qualified to do that and let the scientists work within the Nuremberg Code.

80 - What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #301605 by Quetzalcoatl on December 15, 2008 at 7:57 am

Credim-

However if we are simply complex animals responding to complex stimuli then our responses have to be understandable as simply the result of biological processes in our bodies and brains to which we may feel we have some control but ultimately do not. Essentially given our biological make-up we could not have done different, perhaps our intelligent brains console themselves by positing alternatives that could never have happened anyway.
In a depressing deterministic way I was always going to write this and you were always going to read it in the same way too.

I don't think we are this way, since it is possible for us to act in ways that don't benefit our biology, which you would expect us to be unable to do if our behaviours were purely deterministic.

81 - What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #301603 by credim on December 15, 2008 at 7:53 am

The role of freewill is problematic, "the certain knowledge that we could have done something other" seems to be beyond any necessary evolutionary development.

A simple organism responds to stimulus to maximise its own potential, ie avoid harm or improve its chance of survival. One doesn't suspect that an ameoba is waylaid with doubt over whether it could have done something