How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
To your average theist it is virtually impossible. The average theist can not help but insert "because god" into thing they do not understand even if the subject matter has lots of supporting material.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 10:19 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 10:22 AM by Im a humble little Theist.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(24-11-2014 09:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  A. Naturalism : Attempts to explain all phenomina by natural causes and laws.

Questions :
1. Where did information come from ? What is your understanding of 'information'?
2. Where did Energy come from ? From the Big Bang.
3. Where did Matter come from ? From the energy.
4. Where did Life come from ? From the matter.


B. Materialism : The Doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Questions :
1. What about the Laws of logic ? Human invention.
2. What about the Laws of Science ? Human invention.
3. What about the Laws of Mathematics ? Human invention.
4.What about the Laws of Morality ? There are no laws of morality, morals are a human invention.
5. Where did Consciousness come from ? It is an evolved property of the brain.

In order -----------

1. Information are deliberate messages that consist of specified complexity as in the DNA molecule and a blueprint of instructions on how to reach a final goal in a system via an assembly process. Where did this willful purposed Information come from in the very first life form ? Can you demonstrate an example of information coming from something other than intelligent input ? Do so. If you came down the stairs in the morning and there on the table were the words : 'Have a nice day honey' using alphabet cereal, would you assume the cat knocked the box of cereal over ? Do you believe it is a possibility given an infinite number of tries from the Cat ?
2. The theorized Big Bang is a finite event, but where did the Energy come from for it to bang ?
3. Big Bang cosmology has all the matter wound up tightly in less space than a pinhead so where did the matter come from along with the energy to expand both ? What was the non intelligent First Cause which willed this to occur ?
4. Explain how (animate) life came from dead non-DNA matter consisting of atoms ? Cogently explain the actual process that a rock can birth a living life form of any kind regardless of size .

1.,2,3. The Laws of logic, physics, chemistry,math came with the Big Bang and govern the sustenance of our Universe/Solar System/Earth -- man didn't bring them into being because Man wasn't at the beginning. How did these unchanging Laws come about from raw materials and raw chemicals without a shred of intelligent direction ?
4. If morality is a varying manmade construct , then it is not objective ; this means that there is no absolute standard for judging what is truly right from wrong and is thus just a persons opinion or a Groups opinion. If there are no absolute moral laws then why do Moral Relativists get very upset when Someone violates them morally for it might be the opinion of the Violator his action was not incorrect to do toward you ------ yet the Victim vehemently objects to being morally violated and feels absolute about it . If there are no absolute moral laws, then why do we hide a wrong we do so no one will find out if it isn't really objectively wrong ?
5. If the brain is nothing but the compilations of atoms then explain how non-atom Thoughts arise from these atoms --- detail the precise process please. Where in the brain can a thought be found ? Where is the Mind located in the Human Anatomy ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
In the beginning, there was a dumbbell and an Austrian man with ambition. He discovered that by curling the dumbbell upwards and in towards his chest he could create a response in his bicep.

Then BANG he smashed that motherfucker upwards and the big bang happened and there was a loud roar across the void and then the void become the universe and then the universe began expanding and then energy began to influence orbit and gravity and then chemical reactions occured and then there was a tiny little planet full of molten rock called the earth and then the earth cooled and the sea was there and there the sea gave birth to prokaryotes as they absorbed oxygen from the atmosphere and then they done grew into baboons and then one day mother baboon gave birth to a hairless monkey and then the hairless monkey gave birth to more hairless monkeys until finally one was named Abraham and then god told little hairless monkey Abraham that the earth is actually only 6000 years old as a joke and Abraham was too much of a monkey to understand this joke so he went and told all his little hairless monkey friends the same joke thinking it wasn't a joke and so they did the same thinking it wasn't a joke and so god got really angry and decided to invent the devil as his schizoid persona for when he is telling people to rape murder pillage and not eat bacon.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 05:24 PM by Chas.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(24-11-2014 10:19 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  In order -----------

1. Information are deliberate messages that consist of specified complexity

No, that is not what information is. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system.

Quote: as in the DNA molecule and a blueprint of instructions on how to reach a final goal in a system via am assembly process.

No, DNA is not a blueprint for an assembly process and does not contain any goal, nor information in the sense you misunderstand it to be.

Fetal development is growth with continuous morphological change as the chemical environment surrounding the fetus changes.

Quote:Where did this willful purposed Information come from in the very first life form ? Can you demonstrate an example of information coming from something other than intelligent input ? Do so. If you came down the stairs in the morning and there on the table were the words : 'Have a nice day honey' using alphabet cereal, would you assume the cat knocked the box of cereal over ? Do you believe it is a possibility given an infinite number of tries from the Cat ?

Chemistry is the answer, not your misunderstanding of information.

Quote:2. The theorized Big Bang is a finite event, but where did the Energy come from for it to bang ?

We don't know for certain.

Quote:3. Big Bang cosmology has all the matter wound up tightly in less space than a pinhead

No, it doesn't. It is all energy, no matter. Matter does not exist until the universe has expanded and cooled sufficiently.

Quote:so where did the matter come from along with the energy to expand both ? What was the non intelligent First Cause which willed this to occur ?

We don't know for certain.

Quote:4. Explain how (animate) life came from dead non-DNA matter consisting of atoms ? Cogently explain the actual process that a rock can birth a living life form of any kind regardless of size .

We don't know for certain, but there are several good hypotheses for abiogenesis, none of which involve rocks giving birth to living life forms.

Quote:1.,2,3. The Laws of logic, physics, chemistry,math came with the Big Bang and govern the sustenance of our Universe/Solar System/Earth -- man didn't bring them into being because Man wasn't at the beginning. How did these unchanging Laws come about from raw materials and raw chemicals without a shred of intelligent direction ?

Physical laws are human descriptions of human observations of the natural world.

Quote:4. If morality is a varying manmade construct , then it is not objective ;

Correct, there is no objective morality.

Quote:this means that there is no absolute standard for judging what is truly right from wrong

Correct, there is no absolute standard.

Quote:and is thus just a persons opinion or a Groups opinion.

No, not quite. Humans evolved as a social species and our feelings of empathy, fairness, caring for our young, sacrificing all evolved because they were beneficial.

Quote:If there are no absolute moral laws then why do Moral Relativists get very upset when Someone violates them morally for it might be the opinion of the Violator his action was not incorrect to do toward you ------ yet the Victim vehemently objects to being morally violated and feels absolute about it . If there are no absolute moral laws, then why do we hide a wrong we do so no one will find out if it isn't really objectively wrong ?

Because there are negative consequences for violating society's rules.

Quote:5. If the brain is nothing but the compilations of atoms then explain how non-atom Thoughts arise from these atoms --- detail the precise process please. Where in the brain can a thought be found ? Where is the Mind located in the Human Anatomy ?

Thoughts don't "arise from these atoms", thoughts arise from the complex pattern of chemicals and structures of the brain.

We don't know all the details, but neuroscientists are working on it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 22 users Like Chas's post
24-11-2014, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2014 11:32 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(24-11-2014 09:18 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  The traditional Atheistic Worldview boils down to Materialism and Naturalism without a trace of any intelligent input -----

A. Naturalism : Attempts to explain all phenomina by natural causes and laws.

Questions : 1. Where did information come from ? 2. Where did Energy come from ? 3. Where did Matter come from ? 4. Where did Life come from (the very first DNA molecule which according to Dawkins has enough specified informational instructions in it to fill 1,000 volumes of encyclopedias) ?



B. Materialism : The Doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Questions : 1. What about the Laws of logic ? 2. What about the Laws of Science ? 3. What about the Laws of Mathematics ? 4.What about the Laws of Morality ? 5. Where did Consciousness come from (the animate from the inanimate such as reason, logic, will, love, abstract thinking, etc... derived from atoms . Explain the process ) ?

First of all, you seem to be operating under several serious misconceptions. The most important one is that neither naturalism nor materialism, as you have defined them (and I've seen significantly different definitions from other people) are cornerstones of atheism OR of humanism. I've met atheists who believe in things like ghosts and spirits, just not gods. I've met humanists who believe the same thing. It's not the way to bet, but it does happen.

Second, origins are a much less important topic to atheists than they are to, say, Christians. A cornerstone of Christianity is the existence, not just of some god, but a god that is the creator of everything, including us. Origins are tightly tied up in this narrative. Not so with atheism. Origins in the deep past, unless they can be shown to imply the existence of a god, have little impact on us. Challenging an atheist on origins is a bit like challenging a chess club on origins... the two don't really relate much. More on that in a bit.

In short, you do not seem to understand what it is you're challenging. I suggest you go read a few Wikipedia articles on the subjects. Your characterization of atheism as boiling down to materialism and naturalism is misinformed, and whoever told you that, you should really stop listening to them, or at least do some fact-checking before parroting what they say. Atheism is not believing that gods exists. Period. You can do that with or without naturalism, with or without materialism, and with or without humanism.

Now on to specific questions:

A1: Okay, this question is another case of don't-know-what-you're-talking-about. (Actually, it's a case of parroting Creationist propaganda, which means parroting bullshit.) Here, have a couple of links about what you're asking about. The basic answer to your question as you've asked it is that so long as anything exists, there is information to be found about it, if nothing more than the fact that it exists. I'll rant more about this in response to A4. I also have no idea what this has to do with atheism or humanism, unless you're about to argue that the only way this could be is some god, or that we shouldn't hold the well-being of humans as a high priority in our ethics. Are you about to argue either of these? If so, please cut to the chase.

A2 and A3: Short answer, I don't know, and I also don't care very much. I've got a bit of intellectual curiosity, but I don't eat my lunch and stop for an hour of existential ennui about where the atoms in it came from. If I were pressed to answer, I'd probably go with what the scientists are saying: That the universe as we know it began at what's called the Big Bang, and any information about what, if anything, preceded that was lost in that event and is thus unknowable. (Note that I'm using the correct definition of "information" here.) That I default to them, rather than to religion, is because their process of seeking answers is both logically and demonstrably more reliable. I also have no idea what this has to do with atheism or humanism, unless you're about to argue that the only way this could be is some god, or that we shouldn't hold the well-being of humans as a high priority in our ethics. Are you about to argue either of these? If so, please cut to the chase.

A4: Again, don't know, don't much care, will default to scientific view, just as in A3. Abiogenesis seems to be the most likely answer, and while nothing has yet been confirmed in the lab, there are several plausible scenarios under which this might have happened. In response to your parenthetical comments, MODERN DNA has a hell of a lot of detail (NOT the same thing as information), but early DNA was likely much simpler. Also, unless I'm mistaken, you're confusing Dawkins with Bill Gates. Finally, "specified" information is an undefined term. You might be trying to talk about specified complexity, which is a weak argument often employed by intelligent design advocates. Overall, you seem to be grasping at a standard anti-evolution argument that totally butchers information theory by mischaracterizing both evolution and information entropy. If you wish to make that argument, do so and I will address it, but I won't make it for you. Also, wtf does this have to do with atheism or humanism, unless you're about to argue that the only way this could be is some god, or that we shouldn't hold the well-being of humans as a high priority in our ethics. Are you about to argue either of these? If so, please cut to the chase.


B1: The "laws" of logic are conceptual constructs. Concepts, btw, do need to be instantiated in material substance (such as a book page or a brain) in order to be said to exist in the world. They mostly arise from a few basic assumptions (the division of concepts into true and false categories) and subsequent tautologies based on those assumptions. Again, all of these seem to be instantiated in mediums like text, neurons, etc. If you're going to argue otherwise, please cut to the chase.

B2: We can classify the rules of science into two categories: Those about HOW to do science, and those that science has discovered present in our universe. The first set of laws are a set of procedures about how to most accurately discover information regarding are world. They too are a social construct, and also are instantiated both in material mediums and material actions. Laws discovered ABOUT the universe are things we see matter doing, repeatably and reliably, such as the law of gravity describing the phenomena of mutually-attracted mass. It's an observed pattern in the behavior of matter, and is by your own definition material in nature. If you're about to argue otherwise, please cut to the chase. Otherwise, I'm frankly confused about why you brought this up.

B3: See B1. BTW, I'm a mathematician with an interest in foundations. You don't want to have this conversation with me. Take my word for it.

B4: Again, human constructs, though much vaguer and with less consensus or rigor behind them than logic or math. Also, much more tied in to instinct.

B5: Consciousness seems to arise from the operations of the material brain. There is good evidence of this in the way that physical chemicals and physical damage can impact the functioning of consciousness. If consciousness was not a material process, why would it be dragged down by the physicality of brain function? While neurology does not yet completely understand the brain, emotional states are well understood in terms of hormones and endorphins, and the basic principles are at work. It's a bit like knowing how to build a two story home, and looking up at a skyscraper. Do we know how to do it? No. Are there details of it we do not yet understand? Certainly. Can we understand the basic principles at work? Yes. Are you about to present any evidence that consciousness cannot arise from material existence? Are you? Please cut to the chase, then.

All that said, while I would qualify as a materialist under your definition, I am not at all doctrinaire about it. I am open to other possibilities, provided there is good evidence for them. Are you about to provide this? Then please do so already.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 20 users Like Reltzik's post
24-11-2014, 05:15 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
"Cogently explain the actual process that a rock can birth a living life form of any kind regardless of size"

And this is why I know this poster is uneducated in science.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
24-11-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
It is very useful to dispute the widely held beliefs of science, provided you know enough about the science to make an intelligent argument against it. You don't see the same "how do you know?" stuff with mathematics, even though people "made it all up" and even though most people don't understand it. If you went to a mathematician and told them calculus was bullshit, and how do they explain infinity converging on whole numbers without god, they are going to look at you rather puzzled. If you provide a novel mathematical proof they will not only listen to you, they are likely to give you a nobel prize. If you have some interesting ideas to add to cosmology, or evolutionary biology, or chemistry, or physics, or any body of science, then take the time to make an intelligent argument based on empirical evidence and reproducible experiments. Far from ignoring you, the scientific community will embrace you and you are likely to be remembered for ever (kind of like Darwin).

What you have posted here is of no use to anybody. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it is wrong. You have demonstrated very well your ignorance, you have not demonstrated at all any contrary theories. If you only intention is provide more of the above, I think your time might be better spent doing other things.

Welcome to the forums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
24-11-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
All of these questions and more are answered in great detail in Richard Carrier's book, Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. If you are legitimately interested in answers to these questions, I would recommend acquiring a copy.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KnowtheSilence's post
24-11-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(24-11-2014 05:38 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It is very useful to dispute the widely held beliefs of science, provided you know enough about the science to make an intelligent argument against it. You don't see the same "how do you know?" stuff with mathematics, even though people "made it all up" and even though most people don't understand it. If you went to a mathematician and told them calculus was bullshit, and how do they explain infinity converging on whole numbers without god, they are going to look at you rather puzzled. If you provide a novel mathematical proof they will not only listen to you, they are likely to give you a nobel prize. If you have some interesting ideas to add to cosmology, or evolutionary biology, or chemistry, or physics, or any body of science, then take the time to make an intelligent argument based on empirical evidence and reproducible experiments. Far from ignoring you, the scientific community will embrace you and you are likely to be remembered for ever (kind of like Darwin).

What you have posted here is of no use to anybody. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it is wrong. You have demonstrated very well your ignorance, you have not demonstrated at all any contrary theories. If you only intention is provide more of the above, I think your time might be better spent doing other things.

Welcome to the forums.

You have made an error that sheds light on a great, nay, inexcusable injustice in the world.

There is no Nobel Prize for mathematics.

Weeping

For a mathematician to earn a Nobel Prize, the prize has to be for helping other fields out. And even then it's likely going to be for some phony Nobel Prize, like Economics.

Weeping

Otherwise, I agree with everything else in your post.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
24-11-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(24-11-2014 09:18 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  The traditional Atheistic Worldview boils down to Materialism and Naturalism without a trace of any intelligent input -----

The traditional Theistic Worldview boils down to Supernaturalism without a trace of any intelligence....

Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: