"ask an atheist" thread

[MonkFan8]

Rather than posting a video maybe you could personally make the points that you think are most relevant to this thread?

Or even ask some questions?

Probably not worth while, because who ever made that video needs to go back and take a few basic science courses.

[SWFLSkins]

Maybe it has been the goal of mankind since the beginning, thus the various oddities over time that are well documented, but one thing is certain, and that is death. I find comfortable knowing that there is a beginning, a middle and an end. I don't fear death since I have avoided it so steathly thus far. I will go knowing I did the best that I could with the tools I have had. btw, the Green Mile is on right now on Showtime. Maybe sometime Hollywood gets it right. Survival of the fittest while probably the reason we exist thus far may well indeed be the undoing of all us in the end.

---------- Post added January-8th-2013 at 07:32 PM ----------

btw, sidenote, the world was supposed to end on my Birthday and I never ordered enough cake if it did.

Rather than posting a video maybe you could personally make the points that you think are most relevant to this thread?

Or even ask some questions?

I did and I have.

---------- Post added January-8th-2013 at 09:50 PM ----------

I understand that there are people who have been beneficiaries of very powerful spiritual experiences. Looks like you are one of those people. I think it is great that you have had these experiences and that they provided and continue to provide powerful meaning and drive to your life.

Thanks, and I hope you understand I have never attacked your position in this thread and I appreciate your interaction here.

As for the Youtube thread, I thought it was pretty funny and relevant to explanations being so varied.

[PeterMP]

I did and I have..

I meant with respect to the video you posted and science.

[SWFLSkins]

Rather than posting a video maybe you could personally make the points that you think are most relevant to this thread?

Or even ask some questions?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?378584-quot-ask-an-atheist-quot-thread&p=9389110&viewfull=1#post9389110

---------- Post added January-8th-2013 at 09:55 PM ----------

I meant with respect to the video you posted and science.

OK, guess it seemed as though you hadn't read any of my other posts there Peter. lol.

[Die Hard]

What is a degenrative disease that is also not genetic?

Hereditary means you were developed like that at a cellular level.

Congenital means that something happened in utero during the pregnancy.

So, assuming you are not born with hereditary and congenital dysfunction... and you are born relatively healthy... the only way to die is through traumatic event (endless possibilities) or the degeneration of cells, tissues, organs, organ systems -- but it all starts at a cellular level. And that`s disease or pathology.

What do you think ALS is. What do you think heart disease is. What do you think cancer is. What do you think rheumatism is.These are chronic syndromes (hyper-hypo) which affect specific cells (connective tissue, muscular tissue, nervous tissue, integumentary tissue) and their impairment and dysfunction ultimately leading to disease and death.

The human mechanism is a vitalistic mechanism. It receives sensory input (ie. stimulus) and coordinates and integrates and then responds (ie. motor function). That`s how it survives. And it`s dynamic.. it adapts -- to the best of its ability -- depending on the stimulus. You put cells and tissues under stress... it adapts -- for instance, you put muscle tissue under load..... it hypertrophies (ie. or it tears and atrophies = dies). When cells do not have the vitality and ability to adapt to its environment (ie. internal and external)... it begins the process of dying.

[PeterMP]

Hereditary means you were developed like that at a cellular level.

Congenital means that something happened in utero during the pregnancy.

So, assuming you are not born with hereditary and congenital dysfunction... and you are born relatively healthy... the only way to die is through traumatic event (endless possibilities) or the degeneration of cells, tissues, organs, organ systems -- but it all starts at a cellular level. And that`s disease or pathology.

What do you think ALS is. What do you think heart disease is. What do you think cancer is. What do you think rheumatism is.These are chronic syndromes (hyper-hypo) which affect specific cells (connective tissue, muscular tissue, nervous tissue, integumentary tissue) and their impairment and dysfunction ultimately leading to disease and death.

The human mechanism is a vitalistic mechanism. It receives sensory input (ie. stimulus) and coordinates and integrates and then responds (ie. motor function). That`s how it survives. And it`s dynamic.. it adapts -- to the best of its ability -- depending on the stimulus. You put cells and tissues under stress... it adapts -- for instance, you put muscle tissue under load..... it hypertrophies (ie. or it tears and atrophies = dies). When cells do not have the vitality and ability to adapt to its environment (ie. internal and external)... it begins the process of dying.

Well a lot of cancer is genetic. The breast cancer gene.

Same with heart disease.

At least in some cases, ALS is genetic.

Just because you have genetic "misfunction" does not mean it will show up at birth.

Even something like HIV infection can be considered partly genetic because some people have a genetic background that prevents them from getting most forms of HIV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Therefore those of us that don't have it, could be considered to be genetically flawed with respect to HIV infection.

Why do you think life has a goal and where do you think that goal comes from (from your previoius post)?

[Die Hard]

Why do you think life has a goal and where do you think that goal comes from (from your previoius post)?

Peter, you didn`t disagree with me I clearly stated heredity is a cause for pathology. Most often, genetics just account for a predisposition to a pathology... but that doesn`t necessarily infer that it`s a certainty -- just an increased likelihood. And that leads to point you asked me earlier (ie. survival of the fittest). Those predisposed or born with genetic markers that allow for a higher incidence of premature death... are going to die off. That inherently leads to the strengthening of the remaining species... by elimination of those with bad genetic design. That`s working towards immortality, as a species.

As far as the rest it, I`m sorry. I know you`re a well-educated guy, and well respected on here... but I just don`t have inclination whatsoever to engage thoroughly in these types of discussion. I did it for 10 years... I`m retired now -- which is why I hardly post. It`s an exercise in futility... and I have about 50 more years of studying/reading in front of me right now. I guess, when push comes to shove, I`m only willing to share my knowledge with people who pay me for it :-) I don`t have time with family (wife and kids), a full-time practice and being in school full-time... to have long-winded internet discussions with strangers -- who generally have impure motivations (not saying yours are impure). But my ego is way past that now -- I`m very selective who I give my time to any longer. Sorry.

[PeterMP]

Peter, you didn`t disagree with me I clearly stated heredity is a cause for pathology. Most often, genetics just account for a predisposition to a pathology... but that doesn`t necessarily infer that it`s a certainty -- just an increased likelihood. And that leads to point you asked me earlier (ie. survival of the fittest). Those predisposed or born with genetic markers that allow for a higher incidence of premature death... are going to die off. That inherently leads to the strengthening of the remaining species... by elimination of those with bad genetic design. That`s working towards immortality, as a species.

1. If you did, I missed it.

2. There is no reason to believe that natural selection will return the same species (i.e. the species will be immortal).

3. From a natural selection perspective, "pre-mature" death is also not a trivial or simple concept, depending on what your idea of pre-mature is. If you look at something like severe heart disease where the person dies before (most) of their reproductive age, then that's an issue. Even in some cases when people are older there might be a real evolutionary affect (e.g. grandparents can help with the raising of grandchildren).

But at some point in time, the positive effect would likely become insignificant and in some cases become negative.

[Jumbo]

I hear ya DH. I still have it in me to make a remark or three but that's about it for my personal investment. I like to see (and try to assist) the forum having quality discussion on such matters, but it's rare they stay in that groove very long.

I think the last time I got into this with any real interest on ES was soon after I first joined in the tailgate and trying to be more involved as a mod. We had those conversations with you and techboy (when he was pretty new, too) and Om etc.

I've had these talks at about every level imaginable for almost half a century, and still do, preferably in select company (with folks of widely varying positions--and no slams implied).

I certainly begrudge no one else their interest in such.

These days, whether it's an atheist who is seemingly "extra energized" in worrying some religious person's views down to the bone, or the religious believer similarly invested in pursuing non-believers to great lengths, this kind of stuff is usually of more interest to me from a psychological/behavioral perspective (which includes sociological/cultural/developmental/biological and evolutionary matters) than a mainly a metaphysical, spiritual, or philosophical frame.

It's been a long lone time since I have seen someone posit anything really new or different of any serious and fundamental substance in the matter, on any "side." I think the most interesting thing of recent development has been some still minor sociocultural shifts in the form of the dialogues, as in the refinement of the too-vague terms "atheistic" and "agnostic", and perhaps the increasing awareness of the usually unspoken (and significant) reality that immediately underlying the "surface" argument of "god v no god" is the real meaty matter of "MY God-religion v NOT My God-religion."

Oops. Sorry, folks. I let myself wander there :pfft:--not trying to tangent off. I'm back on track or silent.

[Malapropismic Depository]

Do you all get 70 virgins for being an atheist ?

[Jumbo]

Do you all get 70 virgins for being an atheist ?

I hope not. The one was way more trouble than I anticipated.

[PeterMP]

perhaps the increasing awareness of the usually unspoken (and significant) reality that immediately underlying the "surface" argument of "god v no god" is the real meaty matter of "MY God-religion v NOT My God-religion."

I wanted to comment because you've brought this up twice in this thread.

In the end, I guess my answer to this question and many other questions are unfullfilling for many people. Because in the end, I have to admit that I don't know.

I do know some about other types of Christianity and other world relgions, especially I've known quite a few Hindus so have had a good number of conversations with them.

In the end, Christianity just seems to fit me. Now, I'll freely admit that is likely because I was raised in a Christian house hold.

The thing that I find solace in is that the Bible is pretty clear that it isn't my job to worry about it too much. I don't get to be the final judge. While Christians are called to spread the word, we aren't required to continually repeat the same message to unreceptive audiences.

"When you go into a house, stay there until it is time to leave. If the people in the town will not welcome you, go outside the town and shake their dust off of your feet. This will be a warning to them."

And from my understanding, Hinduism is simillar on that front.

Now, I guess to an agnostic/atheist or somebody of another religion that might be and unfullfilling answer. However, to me, it is better than claiming I have answers that I don't have and just leading people in circles.

To me, the more interesting questions are what should we do if there is a god (and I'll happily discuss the other world's religions to the best of my ability) as compared to what we should do (as a society and individuals) and what society should look like if there is not.

Very oddly (but when I really think about it not actually that surprising) to me, most people seem to think we should wind up in very similar places and that place is the general direction that society has appeared to be heading over the last 100 years or so.

[Thiebear]

Do you all get 70 virgins for being an atheist ?

Situation - you become a 70-1 super minority forever? no thanks

Choices - most are virgins for a reason

Pyramid Scheme - people in the begining get all the good virgins, the later you die the worse your choices.

its a trap - you have to disqualify yourself as an atheist to agree to the terms of the contract.

[alexey]

...

To me, the more interesting questions are what should we do if there is a god (and I'll happily discuss the other world's religions to the best of my ability) as compared to what we should do (as a society and individuals) and what society should look like if there is not.

...

Why do you think there is a difference?

[grhqofb5]

Based on things that are important to you, things you consider worthwhile, the way you want to live the only life you have, your interests, the way you want to be remembered, causes you want to advance, and so on.

You mean biological urges/tendencies, etc.? Is that accurate?

[SWFLSkins]

Why do you think there is a difference?

I guess some people feel if there were truly evidence of no God, that they could live by their own code and rape, pi ledge and plunder at will. btw, there are 17 billion other earth sized planets in the Milky Way.

I only shared my experiences for myself and my belief. Each walk is different, some paths never cross and I hope ours crossing has been beneficial to both of us.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 09:14 AM ----------

I hope not. The one was way more trouble than I anticipated.

as usual, lol.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 09:15 AM ----------

I hope not. The one was way more trouble than I anticipated.

as usual, lol.

[alexey]

You mean biological urges/tendencies, etc.? Is that accurate?

I think people generally view of "biological urges/tendencies" as low level physiological needs. At the same time, you could technically say that astrophysicists are driven by biological urges for knowledge, artists are driven by biological urges for the beautiful, etc.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 09:21 AM ----------

I guess some people feel if there were truly evidence of no God, that they could live by their own code and rape, pi ledge and plunder at will.

..

I suppose such people could exist... just like there could exist people who feel that their God wants them to do these bad things.

Peter asked a question about "what should we do" if there is or if there is no God, suggesting that there is a difference between these. I do not see a difference in "what should we do". I see potential differences in "why should we do it" but not in "what should we do".

[grhqofb5]

I think people generally view of "biological urges/tendencies" as low level physiological needs. At the same time, you could technically say that astrophysicists are driven by biological urges for knowledge, artists are driven by biological urges for the beautiful, etc.

Do the most powerful or apparent urges take priority?

[Die Hard]

This one`s for PeterMP... and the etiology of cancer. Again, we`re going back to the physical environment... in this case internally. We`re talking about blood and interstitial fluid now. It`s not heredity or genetics.

[alexey]

Do the most powerful or apparent urges take priority?

I think so - when you gotta go, you gotta go

[Bang]

Do you all get 70 virgins for being an atheist ?

Nah, we're smart enough to go for the ones who know a little something..

~Bang

[PeterMP]

Why do you think there is a difference?

Basic probability.

Even if you take something simple like sex and treat it binarily, we have pretty distinct options. If we simplify the options and ignore details and only look at the big picture, we can talk about 3 different types of societies based on that. In the history of the world there have been matriarchial societies, patriarchial societies, and societies that approximated gender equality.

And that's just for dealing with sex.

Given two possible guiding principles to create a society, I see no reason why on the scale of all possible ways to construct a society that they shoud be close together.

It just isn't probable.

[Koolblue13]

A civilization like America is in a fine position to finally grow out of the uses of religion and move forward. Still using that ultimate excuse for inaction and ignorance is insulting, but so is the idea of human supremacy in the universe.

I wish we could lead the way of the world, but we can't even stop bombing people or supporting slavery.

[alexey]

Basic probability.

Even if you take something simple like sex and treat it binarily, we have pretty distinct options. If we simplify the options and ignore details and only look at the big picture, we can talk about 3 different types of societies based on that. In the history of the world there have been matriarchial societies, patriarchial societies, and societies that approximated gender equality.

And that's just for dealing with sex.

Given two possible guiding principles to create a society, I see no reason why on the scale of all possible ways to construct a society that they shoud be close together.

It just isn't probable.

I understand that societies take on difference shapes depending on their circumstances, culture, beliefs, history, and so on.

You wrote that you were interested in what people and societies should do if there is a god vs. if there is not. Why do you think it makes a difference?

[PeterMP]

I understand that societies take on difference shapes depending on their circumstances, culture, beliefs, history, and so on.

You wrote that you were interested in what people and societies should do if there is a god vs. if there is not. Why do you think it makes a difference?

There are a large number of possibilities, which means they CAN be different, and (ignoring that most of the atheist I know have had their view points of good and bad shaped by a society where the majority of the people did believe and god) I'm athestic with respect to any reason's why they should be the same.

Basic probability tells me if there are a lot of options and there is no driving mechanism to make two things the same, they will likely be different.