Question for Atheists

[JesusHChrist]

looking like the OP is one of them thar one post wonder(struck)s.

Doing the Lord's work; one post per forum at a time.

Who knew how many devil-infested forums exist on the internet? They are Legion.

[Chad32]

I'm getting tired of the whole morality debate. Morality is subjective. Evn if it comes from a god, it's still subjective because it's still coming from someone instead of just being a universal truth. Morality comes from our need as social creatures to get along with each other. Groups need rules in order to coexist, and these rules change over time as society changes. Since we are social creatures, it's a bit odd that anyone would think it's ok for one individual, or a small group of individuals, to have most or all of the power. That's why dictators tend to be unpopular, and systems that spread the power around the group as a whole tend to work better for everyone involved.

It's not complicated. It shouldn't be hard to figure out. One ruler above all does not help in a group dynamic.

[Whateverist]

Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well. Every idea is a natural string of reactions in the brain. The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.

You do realize that if I believed that everything was just chemicals (an absurdly simplistic viewpoint), then I would have to classify these ramblings of yours as just more chemistry. How could my beliefs possibly be affected by these random chemical reactions of yours?

You do not persuade because you are guilty of oversimplifying us and reality.

---

Oh, another shit and run artist. Never mind.

[Darkstar]

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting.

What exactly is meant by "material" in this context? Energy exists in addition to matter, yet I would be hesitant to label pure energy as 'material'.

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally. We can't take one test tube and say that the mixture in it is "more right" than the one in another tube. Natural laws simply dictate their behavior.

Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well. Every idea is a natural string of reactions in the brain. The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.

Okay.
[quote='WonderStruck' pid='737148' dateline='1408940045']
On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another?

For starters I would say whichever thought or belief more accurately matches reality could be said to be rational. We can empirically test hypothesis (usually) to determine if they are rational.
[quote='WonderStruck' pid='737148' dateline='1408940045']
Dead chemistry can't be spoken of in terms of reason.

Strictly speaking, this is true. However, life is not dead, therefore it doesn't (appear to) follow the same rules (even though, on the most basic level it does).

We are all parts and products of a giant chemical universe, atheists and theists alike. How can the universe be behaving unreasonably in one place but not in another?

Reasonable is just a word, a label used to describe what sentient minds deem as reasonable. Unlike, say, electrical charge, reasonableness isn't an inherent property of matter and cannot be quantitatively measured.

It just is. Lines of reasoning become totally subjective since we are all slaves to our particular chemistry. But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements. If my chemistry makes me think you are unreasonable and yours does the opposite in your brain, since no reaction can be said to be rationally superior to another, then there can be no meaningful debate. Ideas are all equally natural. Isn't that kind of a problem?

Empirical testing can be used to validate certain thoughts or beliefs. It can be a bit mind boggling to try to contemplate brain chemistry at its most basic level, but planes fly, cars drive, and internet forums allow me to post on them. We must be doing something right.

[Minimalist]

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally.

Try factoring in about a billion years of evolution.

How do you explain priests who rape altar boys? Where's the morality there?

[ignoramus]

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally.

Try factoring in about a billion years of evolution.

How do you explain priests who rape altar boys? Where's the morality there?

I truly don't believe that a good percentage of priests are truly religious.
I think they're deviouts who get into the ministry for an easy life and cheap sex.
I mean it! They have no fear of hell because the whole notion is a joke to them.

[Losty]

'Atheistic thinking'

*sigh* I was an atheist far before I could comprehend or was even aware of matters of the universe. And so were you.

Ah you stole my comment! :p

Well actually I was going to say
" atheistic thinking"

Lol. I just can't ever get past that. If you put that in your argument the rest becomes automatically invalid.

The only exception would be something along the lines of "according to atheistic thinking, as of yet, no god has been presented with enough evidence to be particularly believable"

---

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally.

Try factoring in about a billion years of evolution.

How do you explain priests who rape altar boys? Where's the morality there?

Those are not true priests. That's the devil making them do it.
It wasn't me. I was on the moon with Steve. I was dead at the time.

[jesus_wept]

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting.

Not everything is entirely material, gravity, for instance, is a force which is not made of chemicals or chemicals reacting. Rainbows are not made by chemicals reacting either, etc etc..

I'm confused now though. If atheists must think as you proposed, does that mean I'm not an atheist?

[The Serpent]

I'm getting tired of the whole morality debate. Morality is subjective. Evn if it comes from a god, it's still subjective because it's still coming from someone instead of just being a universal truth. Morality comes from our need as social creatures to get along with each other. Groups need rules in order to coexist, and these rules change over time as society changes. Since we are social creatures, it's a bit odd that anyone would think it's ok for one individual, or a small group of individuals, to have most or all of the power. That's why dictators tend to be unpopular, and systems that spread the power around the group as a whole tend to work better for everyone involved.

It's not complicated. It shouldn't be hard to figure out. One ruler above all does not help in a group dynamic.

I don't agree. I think there are basic moral truths which transcend cultural and national boundaries and are, therefore, objective.

[robvalue]

Hi, welcome to the boards

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting.

This comes down to definitions. If you say that "material" is "something that exists", then by definition, the universe must be material. So must god, if he exists, in fact. If "material" refers to what we currently understand about the universe and what we know "exists", then I don't think any atheist would say that there aren't things going on that we are yet to discover. So it's not that they are "immaterial", it's just that we don't understand them yet. But bottom line, being atheist has nothing to do with your opinion of the make-up of the universe. All being atheist means is, "I don't accept your claims about a god because I see no good evidence to support it." That's it, anything else you add to that is just the opinion of an individual atheist.

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally. We can't take one test tube and say that the mixture in it is "more right" than the one in another tube. Natural laws simply dictate their behavior.

Morals are a man-made thing. They are one life form making its judgements about another life form doing something. So no, chemicals are neither right nor wrong. I agree, natural laws dictate chemical behaviour. So a group of chemicals happening to be a form of something that could be considered "alive" then having a "thought" about something, is just chemicals doing stuff.

Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well. Every idea is a natural string of reactions in the brain. The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.

Yes, I agree with this.

On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another? Dead chemistry can't be spoken of in terms of reason. We are all parts and products of a giant chemical universe, atheists and theists alike. How can the universe be behaving unreasonably in one place but not in another? It just is. Lines of reasoning become totally subjective since we are all slaves to our particular chemistry. But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements. If my chemistry makes me think you are unreasonable and yours does the opposite in your brain, since no reaction can be said to be rationally superior to another, then there can be no meaningful debate. Ideas are all equally natural. Isn't that kind of a problem?

As has become clear, we're kind of talking about different levels of "zoom" here. If you zoom right in and are just looking at what everyone's chemicals are doing, then there is no "rational" or "reason", such things make no sense at this level. There is just the laws of nature, causing chemicals to do a bunch of stuff. Once you talk about a "thought", you're zooming right out, and looking at groups of chemicals as things in their own right (which they're not really, it's just convenient) and giving a label to an incredibly complex chemical reaction. This touches on consciousness, which is very poorly understood and maybe will never be understood. A part of our brain fires up this consciousness, and within this model of reality, "we" (whatever that even means) have "thoughts". In order to then compare one thought to another, you have to let go of the chemical model and just assume we're talking about the zoomed out version. We could just stop and say, "hey this is all just chemicals", which is true. Nothing really has any meaning or truth. It's artificial labels we are applying, once we accept that the zoomed our version has some merit to consider, at least as an abstract.

Once zoomed out, we're left with these thoughts and ideas, and arguments. We have to decide in what way we decide whether a particular statement is "true" or not. That is, is the statement consistent with everything we have observed up to this point. To do this, we need a set of criteria. Otherwise, we are just saying any statement is as good as any other statement. And clearly no one (except perhaps insane people) would ever live their life this way with regard to (almost) any other subject than religion.

So an idea is rational if it is consistent with reality. If someone proposes an idea that is not consistent with what we have understood about reality until this point, it is up to them to provide evidence that they have a genuine idea and haven't either (a) made it up or (b) been told by someone else and just believed it without evidence.

A theist is presenting an idea that a god exists, and in particular, the one described in a book that they have. And that he has done x,y,z. This is not consistent with the world as we know it, as the best scientific minds have come up with excellent and testable explanations about the world as we know it, and no god needs to be involved. In other words, a world with this god in it seems exactly the same as this world without god in it. So unless there is any actual evidence of the god, then the logical conclusion is that these claims are bogus. An atheist isn't necessarily saying "no god exists for sure", it's just the rejection of these specific claims. All that goes to show about the atheist is that they are following a logical pattern of thought and only accepting ideas that make sense. If a theist believes ideas based on insufficient evidence, then they are not being logical. If you say that being logical isn't important, then why do you use logic in virtually every other aspect of your life without even pausing to think whether it's a good idea? We need to base what we do on what is actually happening and what is real, to be able to make the best decisions. Otherwise, we may be harming ourselves or others.

There are no absolutes, we can only do the best with what we have. Logic and evidence has repeatedly been the best and pretty much only way to generate further understanding. Until such time as a better method is put forward, all we can do is continue to use this method. Is this all just chemicals? Yes. But if you go down that road, then nothing means anything. So you can't then use this to make a conclusion about a "thought" being of equal merit to another "thought", since that requires this zooming our and acceptance of the abstract notion of life, thoughts and actions to begin with.