Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

[spyderbomb]

Questions to Ask an Atheist


1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?

7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?

8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?

9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?

10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?

11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?*

 

[Stormer0628]

Questions to Ask an Atheist


1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?

7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?

8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?

9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?

10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?

11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?*

Okay, obviously I am bored to death from a dull work at the office, so might as well have some fun with this.

1. Begging the question. But this is for fun, so: a) humanity has not yet definitely determined if the universe has had a beginning or none at all. The Big Bang you say? The BB posits the beginning of what we know as matter and energy, but there is so much more that we do not know about the universe, the nature of dark matter and dark energy the foremost, and whether we can probe beyond the BB—so what came before the BB. Another thing: There are two versions of BB: one that paints a singularity, and another that paints an eternal universe. Cause? Why assume a cause, unless you're a theist who stands ready to jump the gun of your belief in a deity on the subject.

2. There is an equally deterministic version of quantum mechanics, equally valid, but harder to work around, so the question is moot and hints of ignorance of salient scientific facts.

3. There is an argument for a multiverse where universes with different parameters exist inhospitable to impertinent creatures as us. We are fortunate to be asking the questions after finding ourselves in a universe able to host us. Let us not make too much of things after the fact.

4. Not all humanity is fluent with mathematics. In fact the reverse is true: only a handful are capable. And mathematics may not be the end-all if you come to think of it. The human mind speaks in images, not numbers. That is very deep, and that has scientists working in a flurry of different scientific models that is more akin to the working of the human brain.

5. Oh... let's not go the way of the tiring god of the gap fallacy, shall we.

6. Free will is under intense scrutiny as of late. Even if it is illusory, the requirements of social order requires laws over any land that wants to push forward. Ethics is always valid in the life a man. It is only to a man can things be good or bad, and as such the knowledge of what works best for the individual and the group is critical to human existence.

7. Of course. The source: the very nature of human existence, of the very definition of "man" itself. All concepts of justice, etc., must spring from it.

8. Human life is the absolute yardstick of human existence. We value other existence, but if push comes to shove, then bye, other species.

9. Nope. In my case, I prefer not to subscribe to what I have come to finally see as a load of bull and racket well-oiled and maintained throughout the centuries.

10. Religion is early man's science. What's wrong is that it proves to be unwieldy in correcting itself in the face of current information available to all. Dogma and the enjoyment of privileges afforded those who rule religions are not easy to give up for many wolves in sheep's clothing.

11. Depends on the risk. I won't kill myself to save a stranger, but I might risk a limb or two, if the stranger looks like he/she deserves it anyway.

 

[rueryuzaki]

^- andaya, naunahan mo ako sumagot. Hindi ka na busy ano? Hahaha

 

[Stormer0628]

^- andaya, naunahan mo ako sumagot. Hindi ka na busy ano? Hahaha

I just knew I was in a race with you answering this.

I have works to do, but no, they don't tie up my hands totally, especially the dull works.

You mean to say you're bored too, or just that you're not busy at this time???

 

[rueryuzaki]

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

Why the word -- believe? Repair mechanisms, enzymes and substrate channelling came from genetic instructions of DNA in response to the environment. I'd like to hear how naturalism caused it.
And you're talking about the fallacy of irreducible complexity. What do you mean by irrational processes?

6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?

I prefer it to be subjective. It can be ethically justified because if certain actions can reduce the effectiveness of a society, so is the country it belongs. Hammurabi did it right.
There was a story way way back... A person said that someone whispered to his ear that in order to prove his loyalty, he must murder his son. And he almost did it. Do you think it should go unpunished? Do the same thing in today's standards and it's going to be one good ticket to jail.

7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?

Objective morality doesn't exist. The world is so robust and we live in the dynamic universe. We should treat each situation independently to create generalized set of actions to serve as a litmus test for future actions so that we could make better decisions.

8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?

Life has begun billion of years ago. That doesn't make us special.

9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?

What makes those people immune... More books, school and research work that contribute to actual progress

10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?

For me it's a gross negative. Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?*

By donating blood, I just risked my life a bit. I think that counts.

I just knew I was in a race with you answering this.

I have works to do, but no, they don't tie up my hands totally, especially the dull works.

You mean to say you're bored too, or just that you're not busy at this time???

Heyyyy --- busy lang lately sa wedding stuff ko. The church is totally unavoidable, i'll be married to a zealot.
Not that busy na. Care for a bottle or two I guess?

 

[ronell10]

i actually received an sms about that as if asking us to boycott would do any good and would stop abs cbn from its biases

Umuulan sa FB account ko mga post na ganyan.. then kung ano ano ng comment nila which some are negative...

Nakakatawa lang, from sablay na Separation of Church and State, now this boycott issue



@ryu and storm

nice read

 

[tagaInterface]

may salvation ba dito? o walang hanggang parusa? o makuninto na lang na mamatay ng wala lang. o paparusahan na lang sa judgement kung meron man.

 

[parkkeuris]

Is there such Heaven and Hell?

Is there such Judgement Day?

 

[rueryuzaki]

Umuulan sa FB account ko mga post na ganyan.. then kung ano ano ng comment nila which some are negative...

Nakakatawa lang, from sablay na Separation of Church and State, now this boycott issue

@ryu and storm

nice read

Oist kamusta hahaha

may salvation ba dito? o walang hanggang parusa? o makuninto na lang na mamatay ng wala lang. o paparusahan na lang sa judgement kung meron man.

Salvation ko ang school/university para matuto at magamit ang nalalaman sa ikabubuti ng mamayang pilipinas.

 

[spyderbomb]

Okay, obviously I am bored to death from a dull work at the office, so might as well have some fun with this.

1. Begging the question. But this is for fun, so: a) humanity has not yet definitely determined if the universe has had a beginning or none at all. The Big Bang you say? The BB posits the beginning of what we know as matter and energy, but there is so much more that we do not know about the universe, the nature of dark matter and dark energy the foremost, and whether we can probe beyond the BB—so what came before the BB. Another thing: There are two versions of BB: one that paints a singularity, and another that paints an eternal universe. Cause? Why assume a cause, unless you're a theist who stands ready to jump the gun of your belief in a deity on the subject.

2. There is an equally deterministic version of quantum mechanics, equally valid, but harder to work around, so the question is moot and hints of ignorance of salient scientific facts.

3. There is an argument for a multiverse where universes with different parameters exist inhospitable to impertinent creatures as us. We are fortunate to be asking the questions after finding ourselves in a universe able to host us. Let us not make too much of things after the fact.

4. Not all humanity is fluent with mathematics. In fact the reverse is true: only a handful are capable. And mathematics may not be the end-all if you come to think of it. The human mind speaks in images, not numbers. That is very deep, and that has scientists working in a flurry of different scientific models that is more akin to the working of the human brain.

5. Oh... let's not go the way of the tiring god of the gap fallacy, shall we.

6. Free will is under intense scrutiny as of late. Even if it is illusory, the requirements of social order requires laws over any land that wants to push forward. Ethics is always valid in the life a man. It is only to a man can things be good or bad, and as such the knowledge of what works best for the individual and the group is critical to human existence.

7. Of course. The source: the very nature of human existence, of the very definition of "man" itself. All concepts of justice, etc., must spring from it.

8. Human life is the absolute yardstick of human existence. We value other existence, but if push comes to shove, then bye, other species.

9. Nope. In my case, I prefer not to subscribe to what I have come to finally see as a load of bull and racket well-oiled and maintained throughout the centuries.

10. Religion is early man's science. What's wrong is that it proves to be unwieldy in correcting itself in the face of current information available to all. Dogma and the enjoyment of privileges afforded those who rule religions are not easy to give up for many wolves in sheep's clothing.

11. Depends on the risk. I won't kill myself to save a stranger, but I might risk a limb or two, if the stranger looks like he/she deserves it anyway.

my respect for your answer that is how you comprehend it. I expected almost similar answers from atheists. thank you for answering

 

[tinyentegimo]

just a thought​

Atheist are like blind they cannot tell the color of an apple whether its green or red. or even perceived that it has a color or even don't know what is a color and whats its purpose. because they don't have the evidence of it, they cannot touch, smell, hear, feel or taste color--------Marck S. Cordero on Why Don't Argue with an Atheist

 

[spyderbomb]

Why the word -- believe? Repair mechanisms, enzymes and substrate channelling came from genetic instructions of DNA in response to the environment. I'd like to hear how naturalism caused it.
And you're talking about the fallacy of irreducible complexity. What do you mean by irrational processes?


I prefer it to be subjective. It can be ethically justified because if certain actions can reduce the effectiveness of a society, so is the country it belongs. Hammurabi did it right.
There was a story way way back... A person said that someone whispered to his ear that in order to prove his loyalty, he must murder his son. And he almost did it. Do you think it should go unpunished? Do the same thing in today's standards and it's going to be one good ticket to jail.


Objective morality doesn't exist. The world is so robust and we live in the dynamic universe. We should treat each situation independently to create generalized set of actions to serve as a litmus test for future actions so that we could make better decisions.


Life has begun billion of years ago. That doesn't make us special.


What makes those people immune... More books, school and research work that contribute to actual progress


For me it's a gross negative. Evolution has nothing to do with religion.


By donating blood, I just risked my life a bit. I think that counts.


Heyyyy --- busy lang lately sa wedding stuff ko. The church is totally unavoidable, i'll be married to a zealot.
Not that busy na. Care for a bottle or two I guess?

thanks for answering, my respect goes to you and your reason.

 

[tinyentegimo]

just a thought​

Atheist are like blind they cannot tell the color of an apple whether its green or red. or even perceived that it has a color or even don't know what is a color and whats its purpose. because they don't have the evidence of it, they cannot touch, smell, hear, feel or taste color--------Marck S. Cordero on Why Don't Argue with an Atheist

I wonder what are the views of Atheist about "Cloning"

 

[rueryuzaki]

thanks for answering, my respect goes to you and your reason.

No, thanks to you. Things might have lighten up a bit for the readers.

just a thought​

Atheist are like blind they cannot tell the color of an apple whether its green or red. or even perceived that it has a color or even don't know what is a color and whats its purpose. because they don't have the evidence of it, they cannot touch, smell, hear, feel or taste color--------Marck S. Cordero on Why Don't Argue with an Atheist

That is quite philosophical.

I wonder what are the views of Atheist about "Cloning"

We all have different views.

Animal cloning is fine. Which may increase population to some nearly extinct species or add up to our dwindling food supply.
Human cloning is still under fire... and still in debate due to many, many factors.

 

[tinyentegimo]

We all have different views.

Animal cloning is fine. Which may increase population to some nearly extinct species or add up to our dwindling food supply.
Human cloning is still under fire... and still in debate due to many, many factors.

just wondering if a cloned life form, has the same personality/characteristic/attitude with his clone considering they are genetically identical/same copies of DNA

 

[rjeksdi]

Kaya ako naging atheist because nadagdagan din ang Philosophy ko, and the bible is also the main reason. Ang daming butas ng bibliya, sa totoo lang. Puro Sex, patayan saka nagsasalitang ahas? The fck is that?

 

[Stormer0628]

I wonder what are the views of Atheist about "Cloning"

If you mean human cloning, then by all means better let it happen—now. No way we can stop it anyway—will happen sooner or later. Better we start now so we see the problems early on and work things out. In fact Britain has largely conceded the point, and has now allowed gene editing by the scientists. The point is making cloning legitimate allows transparency in the whole process and their appearance in scientific publications would allow for productive exchange of ideas, rather than entertain the fear that some underground labs somewhere are creating our modern-day Frankensteins, which I am sure not many would like.

- - - Updated - - -

Heyyyy --- busy lang lately sa wedding stuff ko. The church is totally unavoidable, i'll be married to a zealot.
Not that busy na. Care for a bottle or two I guess?

At least you get to practice honing your debating skills everyday.

Bottle only...?

- - - Updated - - -

Umuulan sa FB account ko mga post na ganyan.. then kung ano ano ng comment nila which some are negative...

Nakakatawa lang, from sablay na Separation of Church and State, now this boycott issue



@ryu and storm

nice read

nagyayaya na naman si ryu...

 

[VargViking]

buhay na buhay pa rin thread na to ah.

badtrip lang di ko na maopen old account ko.

 

[rueryuzaki]

just wondering if a cloned life form, has the same personality/characteristic/attitude with his clone considering they are genetically identical/same copies of DNA

The short answer is they wouldn't behave exactly the same.

If you mean human cloning, then by all means better let it happen—now. No way we can stop it anyway—will happen sooner or later. Better we start now so we see the problems early on and work things out. In fact Britain has largely conceded the point, and has now allowed gene editing by the scientists. The point is making cloning legitimate allows transparency in the whole process and their appearance in scientific publications would allow for productive exchange of ideas, rather than entertain the fear that some underground labs somewhere are creating our modern-day Frankensteins, which I am sure not many would like.

I have a clone in the other dimension. Would that count? Kidding, don't shoot me.

At least you get to practice honing your debating skills everyday.

Bottle only...?

nagyayaya na naman si ryu...

I've been doing that sometime and getting better at it.

buhay na buhay pa rin thread na to ah.

badtrip lang di ko na maopen old account ko.

Welcome po.

 

[Stormer0628]

I have a clone in the other dimension. Would that count? Kidding, don't shoot me....

If you believe the multiverse theory, then you have countless clones in the multiverse. Each time you make a decision, ryus as many as to the nth power split the timeline for you.