Religion
Related: About this forumDan Ken
(149 posts)we are all atheists when it comes to all those gods, except for that one god we might choose to believe in.
rug
(82,333 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)So how does one become a member?
rug
(82,333 posts)No comment on your other descriptor.
longship
(40,416 posts)Just kidding, rug.
I am an atheist, and I will answer any pertinent questions posed here... to the best of my ability.
R&K
I love this thread. Thanks, my friend.
rug
(82,333 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe in the big bang theory, but what do you as an atheist believe started it all?
longship
(40,416 posts)Is that what you mean?
I like Richard Feynman's response to that question.
Because nothing is unstable.
Better phrased as, nothingness is unstable. But then, it wouldn't be funny.
What makes people think that the Big Bang is a beginning? Nothing in cosmology suggests that. Current theory does not even predict a singularity since current theory breaks down at densities far below any putative singularity.
So, maybe the best answer to how the Big Bang started is, We don't know. Note that this is not the same thing as We don't know, therefore it must be god. The former is a scientific statement; the latter is a fatuous fallacy, an argument from ignorance which violates the methods of science.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe it was God but we won't find out till we are dead.
longship
(40,416 posts)Just tweaking your brain a bit.
The brain is what the brain does... Including consciousness.
Including a sense of self.
Including a sense of being in ones body.
Including sensing ones extremities as ones own.
Etc.
How can we know this?
Because there are neurological pathologies which inhibit all of these things. When the brain breaks down in these domains, the person experiences these effects.
Neurologists can even temporarily impose these effects on any healthy person. And lo and behold, when they do that the precise effects are experienced by the subjects. This can be done with drugs, or with something like transcranial magnetic stimulation. These tests are reliable and repeatable.
There is no magic involved. The brain is what the brain does. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mechanism of the 100 billion neurons and the many orders of magnitude more neural connections between them. The human brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe. All behavior emerges from this mind boggling complexity.
All beliefs, all biases, all love, hate, feelings, learning, and everything else stems from our brains. So too does religion. It's just another emergent property. Not of the universe, but an emergent construction of our remarkable brain.
Think on it for a while. Exercise the most important organ in your body.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think the light at the end of the tunnel thing you hear people talk about comes from the brain. I do however believe that the soul lives on in an afterlife.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And of you say that nothing was needed to create "god", the same reasoning can be applied to a universe without god.
We don't know the answer to the problem of infinite regress. All we know is that religion and the supernatural answer it no better than anything else, clams by the religious to the contrary notwithstanding.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope there is much more and much better.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)i think Feynman was being conservative.. nothingness is almost absurd. works great on paper but even there it took awhile before the idea of zero was formalized. it's still special isn't it? can't divide by zero. it's an identity element, like unity it effects other numbers differently depending on the operation involved .. which is up to us to axiomatically define.
nothingness is an idea, and to my knowledge none of the big bang theories posit something from nothing, but rather something thermodynamically heterogeneous from something homogeneous.
there's even a version of the big bang theory.. about a decade old if my memory serves and by a japanese team.. which posits that the big bang is still happening. always happening. that past and future are extraneous and even confusing elements of the model. let's call it the 'be here now bang theory'
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I think Stephen Hawking is reasonably close to the answer on this one.
I believe the Big Bang started completely through natural processes - no God required. I'm not a cosmologist or physicist, so I don't have the details on these theories.
Gore1FL
(21,034 posts)There are Youtube videos where Krauss summarizes the book.
This doesn't prove the non-existence of God, but it demonstrates the plausibility.
edhopper
(33,208 posts)I think we are less perverted in general than believers, we're just more accepting of perversion than religion.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)the air-speed velocity of a sparrow?
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)'..i'll make a feint to the northeast..'
edhopper
(33,208 posts)would get it. Thanks
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHH*'
edhopper
(33,208 posts)or African sparrow?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)came first. The chicken or the egg?
rug
(82,333 posts)CalFresh
(99 posts)SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)came from monkeys,then why are there still monkeys living today?
rug
(82,333 posts)Those monkeys are dead.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)(And the descent is from apes not monkeys.)
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..both having the same now extinct ancestor.
edit.. the apes are i think slightly closer genetically to that common relative, but in behavior and appearance much closer. it all get's kinda complicated when you start running the numbers. they can unfortunately be made to do some silly things out of context. here's one from a biology 101 prof.
spot the fallacy:
male humans are only something like 95% genetically related to female humans.
male humans are something like 98% related to male bonobos.
bonobos are a different species from humans because of genetic difference.
therefore, men must be a different species from women.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)We're so close genetically to apes, that for all intents and purposes, Homo sapiens is a species of great ape.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..i should qualify my own statement by saying 'we're distant cousins to *modern* apes' .. one of the greater or lesser ape species alive today. we are apes, too.. with big noses and even bigger penises.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)There are 23 chromosomal pairs. The difference between men and women is that women are XX and Men are XY on the 23 pair.
So the difference between a man and a woman is 1 in 46 chromosomes.
100%*(1-(1/46))=97.8%
So assuming that the X and Y chromosomes are 100% completely different (and they aren't) it would be a 97.8% difference max. Its probably around a 1% difference on average. If we are talking women with CAIS its even smaller as its the difference in one gene.
Also, the definition of species is not so cut and dry. The definition that I remember best from my college bio classes (because it was the simplest) is that organisms become different species when their genes are so different that they can no longer produce a non-sterile offspring if you breed them together.
For instance, combining a horse and donkey to get a mule. Interestingly, humans and chimps are much closer relatives than horses and donkeys yet can not produce an offspring at all. So genetic difference does not exactly equate to new species. However, this definition also has problems in that it does not take into consideration asexual species like jellyfish.
So your fallacy is two fold. One you have the wrong percentage for females, and two the definition of species is not defined well enough for the statement on species to be true.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Not a fallacy.. a thought experiment about what makes a species. If my #s were off big deal. Point is men are genetically closer to male bonobos than to women. We are apes.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)Sorry
But, Im a bit of a math nerd so I like getting into simple math issues.
But I did make the point about the definition of species in my post as well
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)jedi mind trick wave -->
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Evolution is a tree, not a straight line.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts).. 'ask an anachronist's day'.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)yeh we can be blunt on teh webs where social stigma isn't real-world, but IRL most atheists dial it down..
..but only because we have to.
muxin
(98 posts)I'm not an atheist but I always have curiosities in atheism concepts
It's good to be able to actually communicate with atheists here rather than just reading the books, in the place where I live it's kinda hard to find an atheist to ask
One of the concepts I'm curious about is evolution, I'm not saying that I'm totally against it, but in some areas there are a few things that raised too many questions for me and I never get the answers
Here's one question, in evolution theory (please correct me if I'm wrong) all creatures are originated in the water, from organisms they evolved into some kind of fish, then they grew legs, lungs, and whatever they need to live on land. So how did they do this? were they like just telling their cells "yo.. cells.. I want to walk on land so give me some legs!" or the cells just moved themselves and formed the legs? is that mean they have a mind of their own? what drove those cells? It was too perfect to be said "random" or coincidence, the shapes, size, the numbers are just perfect for their environment. Or was it the brain somehow telling the cells to create new legs? but that also doesn't add up to me, because if so, what about plants which also evolving? like berries for example, I read an article that said berries were used to look ugly then they evolved to be colorful so they could attract birds which then help them breed, plants don't have brains so how is that possible?
I mean, is evolution happen just because there is an urge then there is a solution for that urge? that sounds too good to be true.
Please enlighten me
rug
(82,333 posts)It's really more a science question than a religion question.
A belated welcome to DU and the Religion Group. I'm not an atheist but I believe they're here.
muxin
(98 posts)All this time I thought Evolution theory is like the holy grail of Atheism and Origin of Species is like their Holy Book, I also thought that many people become atheists because they believe in this theory, so I always thought that an Atheist must have a good understanding and strong reasons to believe everything about evolution.
I actually started my interest since I became a fan of a punk rock band 'Bad Religion' the vocalist Greg Graffin is also a lecturer on naturalism and evolution.
Ok then here is another question that might be more relevant to this thread, how does an atheist sworn when he/she has to testify in court?
Sorry if that's a stupid question, most Americans probably know the answer but I'm Indonesian and I don't have a clue, that's also why I've never met an atheist in my life.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since atheism is essentially simple nonbelief, theoretically there may be atheists who do not accept evolution.
In the U.S. no one is compeled to swear an oath to testify. There are believers as well who will not take any oath on religious grounds. Anyone who wishes may affirm the testimony will be true rather than swear it will be true. The crucial point is that the testimony given is subject to a perjury prosecution if it is deliberately false.
Are you from Indonesia? I'd be very interested in hearing about the daily impact of religions there.
muxin
(98 posts)Yes I live in Indonesia, I guess the daily impact of religions in my country is so vary, pretty much based on the location. There's more than 17,500 islands in Indonesia, and nearly all of them have different ethnic groups, cultures, local ancient believes aside from mainstream religions, even languages and dialects. I live in Jakarta - the capital, where the impact of religions in daily lives does not really stand out, except maybe at noon on Friday where at some points the streets will look empty cause a lot of people go to mosques for praying. But if you go to Bali for example, that has more than 90% Hindu population, or Aceh - a special province that practice sharia law, then you'll see some huge impacts.
I consider myself lucky to be able to know how it feels to be part of both the minority and the majority in this country. I'm an Arab, even though my ancestors came to this place since the 14th century I'm still a part of the minority, but being a muslim made me a part of the majority.
rug
(82,333 posts)Keep posting, you have much to contribute.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)Atheism is the lack of theism. All it means is that we lack a belief in any god(s)/goddess(es).
It has nothing to do with Evolution, or an after life, or any thing like that. It includes people who actively believe there are no gods (I personally call these people strong or explicit atheists), as well as people like myself who neither believe or disbelieve in any gods (I call this group weak or implicit atheists). Sometimes people call implicit atheists agnostics, but that is not completely correct. While an atheist can be an agnostic, not all agnostics are atheists.
My own disbelief has nothing to do with science but rather seeing all the horrors that happen in our world with no gods stepping in to help. Im of the opinion that if there was an OMNIPOTENT BENEVOLENT being watching over us he/she/they/it would step in and stop the rapes/murders/genecides/disease/tortures/etc. I accept that there might be beings we can not see who are not omnipotent or benevolent but its also possible there are not any. I don't know. So, since I have no belief in any god(s) this makes me an atheist.
I also have a strong dislike of MANY things in the bible, which is why I pretty much abandoned Catholicism as a teenager. I don't want to offend anyone so I won't go into that.
Evolutionary science might have convinced some people to become atheists, but that was not the case with me. I like evolution because as a kid Jurrasic Park came out and I was fascinated with the idea that dinosaurs might have evolved into the birds of today! Imagine, that Chicken might have a T-rex as a great great great....great grand-daddy!
I think evolution gets the link to atheism because the theory explained how all the different species of animals came about. But i dont know for sure. I do know that Deism was a lot more popular before Evolution came around.
muxin
(98 posts)I love Jurassic Park too, can't wait to see the next sequel in 2014
johnnypneumatic
(599 posts)If you want to learn about evolution, fortunately one of the leading atheists is also a leading evolutionary theorist and educator.
I'd recommend "The Selfish Gene" (30th anniversary edition) by Richard Dawkins, for a mind blowing paradigm shifting very readable book about evolution and natural selection.
If you want to learn about atheism, he is also the author of "The God Delusion"
Mariana
(14,849 posts)to answer questions about evolution, because evolutionary theory is not an atheist concept. Many, many religious people have an excellent understanding of evolutionary theory and could help you.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)Been a long time since i took evolutionary biology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, etc. but i will try and answer that. But keep in mind I could have some major mistakes because, again, its been years since I took those classes.
The lung came first. It developed in bony fish as the swim bladder. Its purpose was to keep fish afloat even when they were sleeping. Sharks and other non-bony fish lack this organ. How did these organs come about? Through mutation. Must mutations are fatal to the organism but sometimes they can provide a benefit. When this benefit gives the organism an adaptive advantage that organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on the gene. If the gene provides a big enough advantage those genes will spread through out the population.
This is the definition of evolution. Genetic change in a POPULATION (keyword here) over time.
Some times these genes are so advantageous that the trait takes over or the organisms will seek OUT mates with these traits which causes them to become exaggerated over time (think of selective breeding by animal breeders). If the animal with the longer neck can reach food higher up on the trees keeping them from starving to death that trait will give them an advantage and become predominate over time. Slowly these changes add up until the animal becomes a different species or develop unique traits like wings, lungs, feet, etc. There is no thought to it. I hope this answered your question and I hope i did not mess up =P
As for too perfect to be random or coincidence, that is actually wrong. In true chaos small sections of order will arise on their own. A good way to tell if something is truly random is too look for repeats.
muxin
(98 posts)Biology is really not my thing my education is social study and computer science, so I need simple plain language to easily understand these stuffs, and that's a pretty good explanation.
I guess my real curiosity is more about how an atheist explains an existence of something out of nothing. I mean before something exist there must be a process of something else that made it exists. Before earth exists, there is no earth, then something, a material processed/evolved so the earth exist as the result. So, if we keep asking "what's before that?" over and over could the final answer be nothing? If so, how do you explain the very first material that exist in this universe? Because something can't just appear out of nothingness.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)Im not an astro physicist and probably wrong on this, but (as said above) I think that "Nothingness" is unstable. You can't have something without nothing and vice versa. So nothingness broke into matter and antimatter.
Further, I seem to remember that it was suggested by Stephen Hawking, that the sum total of all energy, matter, and antimatter in the universe is 0. So my best guess on the matter is:
Before Big Bang
0
During the Big bang
0=> ( + 1)+(-1)
After the big Bang
(+1)+(-1)=> (+ 1)+(-1)+(+ 1)+(-1)+(+ 1)+(-1)+(+ 1)+(-1)....
Note:
(+1)=matter
(-1)=antimatter
To add to this, in biology there is this phenomenon that happens called diffusion. Diffusion is that when a solid is dissovled in some sort of solvent (lets say water) it will spread from areas of high concentration to lower concentration. Im guessing this happens to energy in space. Not only is nothingness unstable but when matter and antimatter formed the nothingness around it start pulling it so that it would spread through out the universe thus explaining why the universe is expanding and why the big bang occurred. I think this might be related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Of course this is just my speculation on the subject. I DO NOT KNOW for certain.
ANOTHER hypothesis I heard of (I believe it was from Robert Ingersoll) and found very credible is that according to the first law of thermodynamics energy can not be created or destroyed. Something that can not be created or destroyed is eternal. That means that matter HAS ALWAYS been here.
This means the idea that something MUST come from nothing is false. Further, its similar to the theist explanation of the universe. Theist say "something cant come from nothing" correct? Therefore god must have created the universe. But where did god come from? The usual response is hes always been here, because hes eternal. Well if energy is eternal then that means its always been here too and removes the need for a god altogether.
Of course both explanation break the initial premise that something cant come from nothing, therefore that premise must be wrong as far as im concerned
So going by this hypothesis energy in one form or another has always existed. This works well with the physics theory that we are going through endless cycles of big bangs and big crunches (where the gravity of the universe slows down its expansion till the universe collapses on itself).
Of course the problem with this hypothesis is that scientist now know that the universe rate of expansion is ACCELERATING and no-one knows why! This is why I like the other theory better. Whew. That was long. Im sure that was completely
muxin
(98 posts)I have admired Stephen Hawking for quite a while but never have time to read his books. So I guess you do have faith after all, faith in whatever theory that you think is best to explain the greatest questions of life
Thanks again LostOne4Ever, I appreciate you take the time to give such explanation.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)Of course, this is just a quick summary of one little piece of the puzzle. To get a better understanding of evolution, you probably want to read a good book on the subject. But, this article talks a little bit about the question you asked. An excerpt from the article:
What kind of fish did the earliest tetrapods evolve from? Here, there's a solid consensus: the immediate predecessors of tetrapods were "lobe-finned" fishes, which differed in important ways from "ray-finned" fishes (the most common type of fish today). The bottom fins of lobe-finned fishes are arranged in pairs and supported by internal bones--the necessary conditions for these fins to evolve into primitive legs. What's more, the lobe-finned fishes of the Devonian period were already able to breathe air, when necessary, via "spiracles" in their skulls. (Today, the only lobe-finned fish on the planet are lungfish and coelacanths, the latter of which were thought to have gone extinct tens of millions of years ago until a live specimen turned up in 1938.)
Experts differ about the environmental pressures that prompted lobe-finned fish to evolve into walking, breathing tetrapods. One theory is that the shallow lakes and rivers these fish lived in were subject to drought, favoring species that could survive (at least for a while) in dry conditions. Another theory has it that the earliest tetrapods were literally chased out of the water by bigger fish: dry land harbored an abundance of insect and plant food, and a marked absence of dangerous predators. Any lobe-finned fish that blundered onto land would have found itself in (by Devonian terms, at least) a veritable paradise.
In evolutionary terms, it's hard to distinguish between the most advanced lobe-finned fish and the most primitive tetrapods. Three important genera nearer the fish end of the spectrum were Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys and Osteolopis, which spent all of their time in the water yet had latent tetrapod characteristics, which only a trained paleontologist can possibly hope to detect. (Until recently, these tetrapod ancestors nearly all hailed from fossil deposits in the northern Atlantic, but the discovery of Gogonasus in Australia has put the kibosh on the theory that land-dwelling animals originated in the northern hemisphere).
...
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)there's a missing question. since i've heard it enough times to know it's out there, unasked but implied, i'll just go ahead and ask then answer it, for myself, and invite other atheists to answer as well..
'why?'
each non-believer will have a different answer. here's mine, and i'll try to keep it short..
i read too much. at the age of about 17, the first time i called myself an atheist in my out loud voice (i'm 40 now), i decided to read every holy book i could find. it might seem implausible but if you think about it, there's not that many actual *holy* books out there. the bible, duh, and it's apocrypha of various mystical strains is mountainous, sure, but the bible itself has only so many pages. same with the vedas and the avesta .. the book 'o mormons and the koran .. it's get's complicated with buddhism but honestly by the time i was 24 i'd given up, anyway, so the point became moot.
ever read the bhagvadgita (sp?) i bought a copy at age 19 from a krishna in durango, co and lemme tell ya.. krishna was *not* a loving guy. ever read the koran? mo was also .. uh .. trying to make alexander look like a local yocal. and succeeded. he was a conqueror first and then a prophet. it's in the book.
hell i read the corpus of gardnerian wiccan texts and as many books on freemasonry as a.e. waite and manly chose to publish. it's all different strokes for different folks that should *never* have *any* influence of public policy! because some of those 'different strokes' involve taking the heads off of non-believers (not just atheists.. anyone who doesn't believe in that particular strand of fantasia).
look i've lived all through the western u.s. most of my life and even the much ballyhooed native american religions have some perverse side-effects that you just have to see for yourself, since they, like atheists, aren't 'people of the book'.
religion can be just fine, in private, in the closet, the door closed, as some such prophet or avatar or another commanded. once you bust it out in public, it's fair game for me to poke holes in it's silliness.. rude or not rude, i'm not beheading anyone to impose my point of view.
rug
(82,333 posts)If that's the question, it's the same for a theist, i.e., "why does everything exist?" I grant you, the state of religious scripture is muddied, to say the least, but there really is no natural answer.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..i'm not looking for an answer to 'why does everything exist?' .. but if i was going to, i'd get myself a PhD in mathematics and a 2nd in particle or astro-physics before i presumed to speculate. i don't think we animals intrinsically want that answer. my cats are more interested in food, and my worries are typical of most americans'.
for me, it became easy to dismiss as silly that which others consider sacrosanct after reading and comparing so many gory tomes, i suppose. who am i to offer an alternative?
more pointedly, who is anyone?
rug
(82,333 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I enjoyed reading this discussion.
Julie