Questions for Atheists

[Clubber Lang]

so, it's not black and white, or cut and dry that 1+1=2?  

if you live your life based soley on perceptions, i could see how you would believe that nothing is white and black.  but i think it's safe to say that, at some point in your life, you will be faced with a reality that forces you to make a decision.  Case in point, some day we will ALL die.  No perceptions about that truth.

nothing related to morality is black and white

the point im trying to make is 1+1=2 is a fact, where as morality is an opinion

[Clubber Lang]

I see.  So some rape was not a very serious crime in some ancient society.  So what.  It is and always has been immoral.  You cannot make any reasonable argument that says rape is in a "gray area."  I'm not talking about date rape, where there is often a "he said, she said" situation.  I'm talking about where a woman does not want to have sex, or doesn't know the rapist, but is forced to have sex with a man against her will.  That is about as black and white as they come. 

Same with child molestation.  No.  Wait.  Because we have groups like NAMBLA, child molestation is in a gray area too, right? 

the point is morality changes with the times and is therefore not black and white. you said rape has always been immoral, and i showed you that isnt the case. for instance, raping a whore wasnt seen as any sort of crime.

from your eyes, rape is a very serious crime and those societies that didnt treat it as such are barbaric.

from their eyes, the only crime in rape is destroying a mans property and you are too harsh on the rapist.

maybe in 500 years society will have the opinon that women who withold sex are evil for forcing a man to rape them.

my point is you shouldnt confuse your opinion on a subject with eternal truth. that is small minded.

[Necrosis]

you dont understand the concept of morality, i have already stated this and you keep pointing out things like raping a whore isn't a crime. you are correct but the person raping the whore knows that it is wrong to rape the whore but with no external shackles chooses to anyway. this is the point there is an innate sense of right and wrong in everyone that is programmed into our genes, that no external coercion can induce. if someone was raping your wife because he could would you see it as wrong because rape itself is wrong or because it is against the law. i would think you would say it is wrong but for what reason.

and to neo, you say evolution has programmed us to be moral, for the good of society etc. who installed this program? that is basically how did fields of energy(basically all we are up to a macroscopic level) learn to be moral. it must have had this program instilled at the quantum level. but how does this instillantion occur. intelligence is the basis for everything, dna is intelligent because it is programmed to do something(embedded intelligence) which is the same as computers, the electron and protons are intelligent because they behave in a manner which elicits specific movement. intelligence preceeds constraint in the world, look at any invention that adheres to specifics and it was intelligently created by us. now look at laws etc which maintain specific ranges for operation of nature, how come they arent intelligently designed.

do you as an atheist accept that the world is only matter and nothing more? this is the tenat of atheism. how do explain the mind which has no physical substance, cannot be measured, observed, abstracted or tested. it is not material thus puts a hitch in the atheist world view.

i ask you these questions to any atheist and would love to hear your answers for general interest.

why do you accept that the world is not an illusion, that we are real and the world is real?

why is there something rather then nothing?

what does it mean to exsist?

how did reality come to be structured  such that there are laws which protect us and a hierachy of intelligence in the world. natural selection can be an answer for this but NS can only work within structure, how did this structure come to be?

what tells and organism to adapt to the envoiroment?how did they develope the capacity to replicate and purposeful activity?

what are life, consciousness and conceptual thought and how could they come from inorganic matter, or better yet energy fields?

i dont have the answer to these questions, but id like to hear your best guess or idea etc.

[Colossus_500]

nothing related to morality is black and white

would this be why even amongst the most hardened criminals frown upon child molesters in the prison system?  morality, by it's very definition is about what is right or of purity, it's opposite being words like indecency or vulgarity.  when you break down the definitions of all those words you see a correlation between "black and white".  There is ALWAYS right and wrong! 

[NeoSeminole]

and to neo, you say evolution has programmed us to be moral, for the good of society etc. who installed this program? that is basically how did fields of energy(basically all we are up to a macroscopic level) learn to be moral. it must have had this program instilled at the quantum level. but how does this instillantion occur. intelligence is the basis for everything, dna is intelligent because it is programmed to do something(embedded intelligence) which is the same as computers, the electron and protons are intelligent because they behave in a manner which elicits specific movement. intelligence preceeds constraint in the world, look at any invention that adheres to specifics and it was intelligently created by us. now look at laws etc which maintain specific ranges for operation of nature, how come they arent intelligently designed.

I already told you every animal has an innate sense of right and wrong. How come lions don't randomly kill for fun? Why does a mother bear protect its young? Why do elephants take care of weak or injured members of the herd? I guess they must have learned their morals from an animal bible. Humans are capable of more complex morals b/c we evolved a more powerful brain.

do you as an atheist accept that the world is only matter and nothing more? this is the tenat of atheism. how do explain the mind which has no physical substance, cannot be measured, observed, abstracted or tested. it is not material thus puts a hitch in the atheist world view.

The only "tenet" of atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s). It is not a philosophy like you have implied several times. I believe that when we die, we cease to exist. This does not mean that I cannot value people, hobbies, music, sports, places, etc while I'm still alive.

[NeoSeminole]

would this be why even amongst the most hardened criminals frown upon child molesters in the prison system?  morality, by it's very definition is about what is right or of purity, it's opposite being words like indecency or vulgarity.  when you break down the definitions of all those words you see a correlation between "black and white".  There is ALWAYS right and wrong!

I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.

[Dos Equis]

I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.

Actually he's saying that essentially everything is debatable and there is no "black and white" when it comes to morality.  But as Colossus said, "There is ALWAYS right and wrong!"  Now that is an eternal truth.   

[OzmO]

When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"

That's where the line is.  Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.

[NeoSeminole]

i ask you these questions to any atheist and would love to hear your answers for general interest.

why do you accept that the world is not an illusion, that we are real and the world is real?

b/c then everything wouldn't be real and "illusion" would lose it's meaning. If every single person in the world is tall, then how would you define tall?

why is there something rather then nothing?

more matter was created than anti-matter in the beginning.

what does it mean to exsist?

to exist means to not be dead.

how did reality come to be structured  such that there are laws which protect us and a hierachy of intelligence in the world. natural selection can be an answer for this but NS can only work within structure, how did this structure come to be?

ha ha ha, creationism logic is funny. "God is real. Now what facts can we find that proves this conclusion? The world appears to be intelligently designed. God = intelligent. Therefore, God must have created everything. Brilliant!"

what tells and organism to adapt to the envoiroment?how did they develope the capacity to replicate and purposeful activity?

nothing tells an organism to adapt to the environment. We cannot change our own genetics. However, organisms that are better-suited to the environment live to pass their genes on to the next generation and so on. This process continues until the population has adapted. I don't know what provided the initial stimulus for reproduction.

what are life, consciousness and conceptual thought and how could they come from inorganic matter, or better yet energy fields?

I don't know. You tell me since you are the one who believes whole humans spontaneously formed all of a sudden from energy fields.

[Dos Equis]

When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"

That's where the line is.  Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.

There is a pretty easy line to draw in a number of instances.  You don't have forcible sex with a woman.  You don't molest kids.  Nothing subjective about that. 

[Colossus_500]

I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.

Even if something is less wrong, it's still wrong, which has to mean there's an antithesis of it...which is right.

[Necrosis]

ok neo i will slow down for you to come so i can reach you as you seem to avoid the tenats of my questions and the implications. the pax-6 gene which is similar in organisms with eyes created different eyes in each species, this is a brief rundown. anyway the point im making is that you say ok these genes created this and that but something initially has to contain the information to create that data(mutations are just scrambling of the data, they cant make something that wasnt there to begin with). therefore dna had the inherent already programmed capability to form eyes, ears, intelligence, consciousness etc.. but were did this program come from. ok some animals are programmed differently but to program implys intelligence to ignore this is ridiculous. who programed these organims?

how did nothing create something neo, im still waiting for your answer. and when you give me the same one you've been giving i will show your ill logic.

you also obviously dont know what athesim or materialism implys. the belief in no god implys that the universe is nothing more the purely physical non-supernatural and completely made of matter nothing more. this is the tenat of athesim as implied by its contentions. i see no point to argue factual point. but then comes consciousness and chrushes the material explanation for everything. i will elaborate but how did nothing come from something.

you dont see your ill logic is the funny thing. why is there something insted of nothing. your answer inplys that matter is infinite and always exsisted. here i fix it up for you using einstein, aquinas and others. something exsists rather then nothing because there is something that exsists that essence is to exsist and cannot not exsist. it preceeds everything and is eternal. so you say matter is eternal am i correct?

[Necrosis]

another example is garbage in = garbage out in that a program can only produce what it contains. you can mutate it all you want but that data to make life, consciousness , and the mind must already be in the program. i along with others beleive it hard to imagine that inorgnic matter contained these possiblities. dna must already contain the information to create purposeful behaviour(replication, awareness of "i") but who put the initial information into the program.

your cells continually change and are dying and some are changed etc. if you reduce everything down into fields of energy(quanta) them how is it that "I" am aware of myself because of these quanta. i know i know what im doing and this is seperate from artificial intelligence which is uniquly human. my cells may change and "i" am always the same person, i know this personally. this is an non-matter tenat that states that not everything is consistent with matter.

and again i will ask so you will answer how did nothing create something?

your answer will be vaccum fluctuations correct?

[Clubber Lang]

i asked this before but ill ask again, if there is a universal moral code of right and wrong can one of you please write it down for me .... if you cant, why not?

[Necrosis]

that would be a painstaking process that i assume social psychology would have to ensue upon. but i know that friendship morals and incest appear to be the same across cultures from my studies in psychology in which i am trained. for review see  david g myers and steven j spencer social psychology(2006) as for your question you are asking for an all encompassing theorem that is bascally impossible to produce, much like the string theory or toe theories. you wont find a clear cut answer, but morality is clear cut in some cases but not so in others. however this grey area should not be mistaken as not black and white for there are areas of black and white in morality already mentioned but some are open for discussion. but they may be reduced to the primal issues raised above at some juncture, they may be the basis for all morality like there may be a few simple laws in physics that govern everything.

[OzmO]

i asked this before but ill ask again, if there is a universal moral code of right and wrong can one of you please write it down for me .... if you cant, why not?

Here:

When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"

That's where the line is.  Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.

[NeoSeminole]

usmokepole, I haven't avoided ANY of your questions. I have responded to each individually. I also responded to you in multiple threads, which you have yet to reply. I'm not afraid to have an intelligent discussion with you b/c honestly it's fairly easy for me. Regarding your comment about DNA replication, it is believed that DNA evolved gradually from a less complex nucleic acid such as RNA or PNA. Both have the ability to catalyze their own replication.

I cannot answer how nothing came from something b/c we're not sure if there was ever truly nothing. For all we know, matter could have always existed. This universe may simply have spawned from another or could oscillate between multiple universes. Please show me my "ill logic." While you're at it, show me how god(s) is the only plausible explanation. How can an immaterial, supernatural being so much as lift a grain of sand let alone create a material, natural universe? I look forward to your response.

I know plenty well what atheism means. There are no tenets like you suggests. It is not a philosophy no more than a lack of a belief in the spaghetti monster is a philosophy. I believe the universe is non-supernatural. However, this does not mean I cannot value people, hobbies, music, sports, places, etc while I'm still alive. Existence per se is meaningless. What does matter is how we choose to live our lives.

[Necrosis]

you keep stepping around the question of how these dna molecules were programmed to perform there functions. autocatalysis is an unproven science and has many critics but i am not equipped at this point to handle that debate, put perhaps will be. im glad you enjoy the discussion but dont think my beleif in a god is a lack of intelligence on my part and i wont do the same for your materialist view, which you havent clarified yet. your autocatlysis doenst even address the question and this is part of the reason the argument go's stale between us.i used the gigo argument along with mutation to explain why dna or whatever(quanta, quarks leptons etc) have programs and contain the intrinsic value to create consciousness and the mind for no reason apparent, then you reply the dna replicate auto-catalytically which adds nothing to the discussion. if you cant explain something scientifically and there are things that exsist that cant be(that is meta-physics) then use logic.

 also i know nothing had exsisted because of the law of cause and effect which states that time is real and everything has a cause and effect. people may argue time ala hawking etc but the fact is that time is linear from experience (causes happen before effects) and certain things cannot be reversed for it wouldnt be logical. therefore do to the law which we abid by there was a first cause, not causes that caused causes like hawking states, linear time had a beginning which was nothingness before it. also, your multiverse idea has no merit and is wishful thinking, youd still have to describe laws which allow multiverses to which nothing exsists. vaccums are the best explanation in quantum physics as to why nothingness produce somethingness. but vaccums are something and not nothing and it is a confusion of meaning which dillutes the situation. singularity, quantum mechanics, and cause and effect all point to a state of nothingness before somethingness. your ideas are wishful thinking at best and do nothing but add mystery. my questions are not really questions for i would venture that i am the one with more knowledge from your para phrasing while my knowledge comes from pre-read material. and i am not limited to physics or biology, but can discuss clinical nutrition, psychology and neuroscience in depth as well. i just hate when you try and paint me as uneducated because we take the same data and interpret it differently. like transitional fossils, agian they are fully formed in the fossil record at the cambrian explosion with fully functional parts that resemble other species, i take this as a seperate species and you say it is an evolution in progress, then the slow steps were not accepted because the fossil record was replete with only full forms and you guys say punctuated equilibria, yes you are making hypothesis that describe the data but have no proof. and cant be tested.

i will answer your questions and try to demonstrate why beleif in a god is appropriate through science i just need some time to formulate the argument to my liking as to answer your questions. i could answer them now but i missing a few arguments that i cannot answer yet but will be able to do so in a couple of days. might sound retarded but i would rather form a good argument then a half assed one to a such a question as why there is a god, you can dismiss this as ridiculous but none the less i will post a concise argument. also i responded for 71 replys until you started talking about awards and wouldnt read the material i presented from renouned scientists, plus i dont dis agree with science(except evolution, but only some of its parts. i agree with adaptation) so i would rather argue with it for god then against.

as for the tenents of atheism sure there are some one is there is no god, see. anyway i have to study for a exam so i will respond to your question appropriately.

[Clubber Lang]

Here:

sorry i missed that the first time.

if i get struck by lightening, is lightening evil?

how about bit by a shark ?

cancer ?

and unplanned pregnancy ?

what about death ?

is it ok for me to rape a retard ?

since children dont really know what they want, how can child molestation be evil?

[NeoSeminole]

usmokepole, I enjoy having discussions with you but please try to keep the length of your posts to a minimum. I have noticed that people are more likely to lose interest in a thread with lengthy replies. I am simply asking you out of courtesy for others. Now, to respond to your last post:

you keep stepping around the question of how these dna molecules were programmed to perform there functions. autocatalysis is an unproven science and has many critics but i am not equipped at this point to handle that debate, put perhaps will be. im glad you enjoy the discussion but dont think my beleif in a god is a lack of intelligence on my part and i wont do the same for your materialist view, which you havent clarified yet. your autocatlysis doenst even address the question and this is part of the reason the argument go's stale between us.i used the gigo argument along with mutation to explain why dna or whatever(quanta, quarks leptons etc) have programs and contain the intrinsic value to create consciousness and the mind for no reason apparent, then you reply the dna replicate auto-catalytically which adds nothing to the discussion. if you cant explain something scientifically and there are things that exsist that cant be(that is meta-physics) then use logic.

I'm not really sure what is your question. If you are asking where DNA gets its information from, mutations in the DNA of an organism result in new information being added to its genome. This new information is not normally "useful", but natural selection allows for beneficial mutations to persist and accumulate in a population over time. So far I have explained how early life may have reproduced and where DNA gets its 'programming' from. I hope I have answered your question.

also i know nothing had exsisted because of the law of cause and effect which states that time is real and everything has a cause and effect. people may argue time ala hawking etc but the fact is that time is linear from experience (causes happen before effects) and certain things cannot be reversed for it wouldnt be logical. therefore do to the law which we abid by there was a first cause, not causes that caused causes like hawking states, linear time had a beginning which was nothingness before it. also, your multiverse idea has no merit and is wishful thinking, youd still have to describe laws which allow multiverses to which nothing exsists. vaccums are the best explanation in quantum physics as to why nothingness produce somethingness. but vaccums are something and not nothing and it is a confusion of meaning which dillutes the situation. singularity, quantum mechanics, and cause and effect all point to a state of nothingness before somethingness. your ideas are wishful thinking at best and do nothing but add mystery.

Where does the law of cause and effect come from? I never learned about it in physics or chemistry. It sounds to me like something in the realm of philosophy rather than science. If everything has a cause and effect, then what caused god(s). You cannot argue that the universe violates this principle yet make an exception for god. In addition, all the natural laws only pertain inside the universe. It's possible they could have been broken during the creation of the universe. I proposed the multiverse hypothesis to give an example of how matter could have always existed. I find it amusing you consider it wishful thinking since creationism has even less merit.

[Necrosis]

god exsists cause his essense is exsistence and he cannot not exsist, it is neccesary. something had to be eternal, that is a given from logic. it is just as logical that something doesnt have to exsist but does so that assumes some meta physical priciples. science rests on the pre-sumptions of meta-physics or ontological principles, otherwise there would be no point in continuing the scienctific method. even at the quanta cause effect is evident, like quantum entanglement, one photon has and effect on another one regardless of distance(non-locality)that is there is first a cause then an effect. if the world didnt behave that way science cannot be conducted yet science cannot prove it. however, it is presumed in order for science to work, just like we presume there is a reality outside our consciousness, otherwise science cannot occur, or is pointless. there are many meta-scientific principles that science rests on, as outlined by einstein, aquinas, and others from eastern thought. i can elaborate but it would be pointless because you must accept cause and effect.

[NeoSeminole]

The universe exists cause it's essence is existence. See how easily I can use the same argument? You cannot say the universe violates the cause-and-effect principle yet make an exception for god. It is worth pointing out that there is no such law in the physical sciences. This is purely a philosophical discussion. The premise of your argument "everything had a cause" is itself contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." Furthermore, even if there was a first cause, it still does not prove god(s) exists.

[NeoSeminole]

as for the tenents of atheism sure there are some one is there is no god, see.

That is no more a "tenet" than the belief the sun will rise tomorrow or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Following your definition, any belief can be considered a tenet. It loses its meaning.

[Necrosis]

i can not show you the god equation, but reading the works of the aforementioned philosophers. something has to be eternal and its essense is to exsist this is logical. for a complete nothing cannot create a something because something is not a type of nothing. so logically something has to be infinite. something has to violate this law and the only thing that is logical is a being operating outside it or something which essence is to exsist, that is its purpose , it is everything that is and will be. you have to accept meta-scientific principles for science to work at all this is a given, science cannot prove consciousness but knows it exsists, or that the world is not an illusion, yet science must assume this to continue, just like the link between causation and effect. again i will sum the arguments up into one conglomerate, but i am no expert, i will try i just dont have the time to open up  a big discussion right now, but will shortly. however, i can argue these small points briefly.

[Necrosis]

i would also point out that you still did not give an adequete answer for why there is something rather then nothing. more matter then anti-matter provides no answer for matter is something not a type of nothing, why is there something insted of nothing. it is a philosophical argument since science rests on empiracal, and thus things like consciousness and before the big bang cannot be tested. that is when you turn to self evident truths like the one the converted antony flew and why people like einstein and hawking dont disagree with a deity because they see this philosophical and meta physical truth. einstein wanted to know the mind of god and the rest were details. whats fasicinating about mathmatics in our world is that mathematics even allow us to take away anything from the world. why is the world such that we can make reason and such that everything is in perfect order so that we can reason and can make sense, have intelligence, who holds the patent for the laws of physics since they had to start somewere? intelligence can only be created by intelligence do you agree with this statement?

if not give me and example of non intelligence, non-life creating life, for instance a pillow becoming conscious. i will outline the attributes of a living system as outlined be the symposium in 1993 if you would like clarification, to make a better point.