Answers needed

[robvalue]

Atheism has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Neither does theism, by default, although most of the time any given theist is likely to make an immediate connection.

Atheism is not a package of answers that is designed to replace religious doctrine. It's simply a rejection of unfounded claims about gods, whatever they are meant to be. And unless you also make your own claim of knowledge that they don't exist, you haven't labelled a creator God impossible. You have simply rejected it out of serious consideration, pending any further evidence.

Religion offers a lot of simple answers to difficult questions. But they are made up. Atheism offers no answers. The most honest and liberating answer is, "I don't know". Religion thrives on people's apparent discomfort with that phrase.

"God did it" is just an abandonment of the desire to learn and an unjustified appeal to magic which explains absolutely nothing.

[Tonus]

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

1. No.
2. The origins of the universe are not completely understood, and may never be. So I can't answer that question.
3. Yes.
4. Due to their circumstances (sorry, but such a vague question merits a vague answer).
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.

Two follow-up questions:
1. Since the universe started with the big-bang, where did cellular life (evidence of design) come from?
2. Your answer to question 6 implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Where do you think these concepts come from? You've probably heard the argument that "right" and "wrong" implicitly refer to a higher standard. What's your response to that?

1. The origins of life are also not completely understood, though it seems we might get close to one or more answers, involving chemistry. However, cellular life is not "evidence of design." You'll have to demonstrate that before you can slip it into a question.
2. Our determination of right and wrong have developed over time as our communities and societies formed and grew. They continue to do so today. The notion of an objective standard of right and wrong tends to go to pieces under any sort of examination, even if we allow for an all-powerful lawgiver. If right and wrong are truly objective, then most gods are guilty of wrongdoing. If a god is considered to be above notions of right and wrong, then those cannot be held objectively.

[brewer]

Good morning Louis. Before I respond I'd like to know if you are going to use the data you collect or any of our opinions/views in a sermon or in any form in the church?

[Brian37]

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

1. No.
2. The origins of the universe are not completely understood, and may never be.  So I can't answer that question.
3. Yes.
4. Due to their circumstances (sorry, but such a vague question merits a vague answer).
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.

Two follow-up questions:
1. Since the universe started with the big-bang, where did cellular life (evidence of design) come from?
2. Your answer to question 6 implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Where do you think these concepts come from? You've probably heard the argument that "right" and "wrong" implicitly refer to a higher standard. What's your response to that?

1. The origins of life are also not completely understood, though it seems we might get close to one or more answers, involving chemistry.  However, cellular life is not "evidence of design."  You'll have to demonstrate that before you can slip it into a question.
2. Our determination of right and wrong have developed over time as our communities and societies formed and grew.  They continue to do so today.  The notion of an objective standard of right and wrong tends to go to pieces under any sort of examination, even if we allow for an all-powerful lawgiver.  If right and wrong are truly objective, then most gods are guilty of wrongdoing.  If a god is considered to be above notions of right and wrong, then those cannot be held objectively.

Don't feed the fundies. When you say "The origins of life are not completely understood" what the sky hero fan hears is "AH HA, see you admit you don't know so I can fill in that gap with fiction".

There ARE natural concrete scientific facts that explain life, like evolution and DNA. We also know that the atoms in our bodies are literally stardust, and that all the matter in the universe started in one tiny dense space. Those are scientific facts NOT in dispute.

Certainly no scientist I would call ethical would claim to know everything, but there certainly are old and bad claims that humans can scrap and discard without losing any sleep. The god of the gaps argument is nothing more than our species reflecting itself. God belief is a side affect of evolution in that we gap fill projecting our own qualities in superstitious forms. There is absolutely no evidence any type of super natural god exists, there is tons of evidence that humans make them up. 

The Cosmos series with Neil Degrasse Tyson demonstrates our species notoriously flawed perceptions projecting anthropomorphic answers on the world around them. Independently our species has created myths about patterns in the stars, it has created myths about commits being omens and god claims are no different. 

What science does not currently understand, does not mean we take unscientific superstition and fill the gap with it.

[SteelCurtain]

SteelCurtain,

Thanks for answering the question. Regarding your assessment of me, believe it or not, I actually feel that the evidence I've seen points to a creator. Have you read Misia Landau's Narratives of Human Evolution? Apparently the interpretation of evidence has more to do with presuppositions than actual empirical truth. 

"The question to ask, then, is not what do fossils tell us about human evolution but what is it about human evolution . . . that through fossils is getting said."

I'm glad to hear you aren't a dogmatist about your beliefs. :-)

We all have presuppositions. Scientists, by and large, attempt to remove these presuppositions from their interpretations of evidence. What you are suggesting, (by begging a creator god) is the very worst type of presuppositionalism. You are starting from a conclusion. This is the worst backwards thinking. No one started with an idea for evolution and sought to prove it with the fossil record. The start was observation in nature, and from that evidence came a hypothesis, which has been tested and proven over and over again.

We have had the morality thread. This will be the third thread for morality in the last month. See "What IS good..." by Catholic_Lady and "Why be good?" by Randy Carson. Well over 2500 posts on where morality comes from. Evolution we haven't done in earnest since Rev777 and his 7 proofs. (Of which he only got 2-3 done and claimed victory despite getting thoroughly smacked around.) If you're interested in actually learning what you're arguing against, then maybe you should make a thread with your questions?

[Tonus]

Don't feed the fundies. When you say "The origins of life are not completely understood" what the sky hero fan hears is "AH HA, see you admit you don't know so I can fill in that gap with fiction".

I am willing to be honest with them, even if the end result is that they are not honest with themselves. Also, OPs like this one make me think that the person is trying to make a point of some kind, and I prefer not to jump the gun. It's better to let them spring their intellectual trap in full confidence, even if it's just going to be an argument that we've seen (and beaten into the ground) many times before.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hi everyone!

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but I'd really appreciate some answers to some/all of the following questions. I'm interested in how an average atheist thinks about these topics. It would be great if you could give some explanation for your answers. I'm coming from a protestant worldview.

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

Sorry for being point form. 

1. No.
2. I don't know
3. I don't know (you tell me?)
4. Because our biology allows it.
5. Sure, there's life after death - just not for the dead.
6. I don't know (you tell me?)
7. Sure.

[robvalue]

You don't know?

Hah!

I do. So I win. Checkmate.

[JesusHChrist]

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

Sorry for being point form. 

1. The FSM is Real! So, yes! There are books, pictures, cartoons, and he has Revealed Himself to Me Personally!
2. On the first day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster separated the water from the heavens; on the second, because He could not tread water for long and had grown tired of flying, He created the land—complemented by a beer volcano. Satisfied, the Flying Spaghetti Monster overindulged in beer from the beer volcano and woke up hungover.[22] Between drunken nights and clumsy afternoons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster produced seas and land (for a second time, accidentally, because he forgot that he created it the day before) along with Heaven and a "midgit", which he named Man. Man and an equally short woman lived happily in the Olive Garden of Eden for some time until the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a global flood in a cooking accident. (From the wiki on Our Beliefs)
3. Yes! To eat pasta, drink beer/wine/soda/Evian and fondle strippers. Fondling usually requires an "up charge". Details provided on arrival in Heaven. Tipping highly encouraged.
4. Because they don't believe in the Correct Lord, the FSM.
5. Absolutely! Complete with beverage volcano (beer, wine, soda, Evian), stripper factory (both male and female, no discrimination in Heaven!)
6. Let the FSM be your guide and just Ask Him for Guidance!
7. What is truth?

[Pyrrho]

...
4. People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)
...

First of all, much of what is wrong with the world has nothing to do with humans having free will.  Think of all of the diseases, earthquakes, etc.  So free will does not explain away evil.

Second, it is not entirely clear that we have free will, nor is it entirely clear that having free will is a good thing.  I will set this aside for the moment, but it needs to be established for it to be reasonable to believe your story.  (That would involve explaining what, exactly, "free will" is.)

Third, is there free will in heaven?  If so, does that mean that evil will exist in heaven?  If so, how is heaven different from life now?  And if there is free will in heaven, without evil, then having free will does not explain the existence of evil here and now.  And if there is no free will in heaven, then it must be better to not have free will, since heaven is better than here.  Isn't it?

Fourth, imagine that you and I are having a picnic together in a large park.  We are conversing agreeably, having some wine and good food.  In the distance, we observe a group of people attacking another person, raping and beating the person.  You say, "hey, we should do something" like call the police on your cell phone, go get help, go and directly help the person, whatever.  I say, "no, we can't do that!  We can't interfere with their free will!"  Now, if that really happened, what would you say of me?  Would you regard me as moral or immoral?  Well, I would be doing what God does.  So are you saying it is right to not help others?  Furthermore, we can see that this does not work anyway as an excuse, because us interfering would not affect whether they have free will or not.  We would only be affecting the outcome, not their ability to make choices.  Likewise, God interfering with outcomes would not affect anyone's free will at all.  They could still will to rape and beat and kill, without succeeding.  So this "free will" excuse really excuses nothing whatsoever.