Share your worldview?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is where I'm going to challenge you. First let me say where I agree with you: "You either knew before or you didn't." That's true... concerning my car, the afterlife, or anything.

Progress.

We can agree on this: there is an actual mass of Jupiter. There is. But do I know it? No. Does anybody know it? No.

Okay.  

So here is the question: Am I irrational taking an "agnostic" position about the mass of Jupiter simply by acknowledging that I'm unsure of its precise mass?

You mean, would it be accurate to say that you don't know the mass of jupiter.  Sure.  

My position is: I don't know the precise mass of Jupiter. The "theistic" position is "Jupiter is 1 kg." In this case I reject the theist's position, but in admitting that I DON'T KNOW... you have lumped me in with people who consider things like 1 kg. I acknowledge that it is not 1 kg. But at the same time I reject 1.898 X 10^27 kg.

-and there you delve into a or irrationality again. If you know that it "isn't 1kg" then you aren't an agnostic and the subject isn't an unknowable. You don't have to know everything to know something, and you don;t need to know what something is in order to know what it's not.

As I type this, I can already hear your objection forming. "The mass of Jupiter is a numerical value-- the existence of an afterlife is binary." I can give a binary example, too. I just didn't think from the outset to make my example binary. But whatever, I'm not retyping, and I think I made my point okay with the Jupiter example.

No, I'd have gone with the simpler "false analogy", I don't plan on doing any math, lol.

[Simon Moon]

Great responses - very helpful and well argued! I appreciate it.

All in all, quite interesting and a lot of similarities. I need to do some deeper thinking on a lot of what was said, but a couple questions do jump out -

1) How do you deal with the idea of ceasing to exist after death - or doesn't it bother you?
2) How do you explain what could be considered evidence of intelligent design (such as DNA) - or the statistical improbability we could have happened by random occurrence.

Another is - Can you explain why you became an atheist? But that could easily be a topic for another thread.

I already PM'd my responses to psalm531, so I'll respond to these.

1) How do you deal with the idea of ceasing to exist after death - or doesn't it bother you?

1) While the process of dying might be a bit scary, I am not afraid of after I die.

As Mark twain once said, "I was dead for billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it". Well, to be honest, he may not have said this, but the sentiment holds true anyway.

2) How do you explain what could be considered evidence of intelligent design (such as DNA) - or the statistical improbability we could have happened by random occurrence.

Sorry, but DNA is not evidence for ID.

Has the exact explanation for DNA been discovered? No. But, there are natural pathways, that do not violate anything known about physics, chemistry, or biology, that explain how DNA could have come to exist.

And here's the thing, the vast majority of scientists that work in any field related to DNA, do not believe it is evidence for ID. Here we have people that actually work in the related fields, who have spent years in graduate school, who actually understand the science better than we can even imagine, dedicated their lives to the study, who are not convinced DNA is evidence for ID.

Why are you, a layperson in the fields related to DNA convinced, yet the people that understand it, not? Where's your Nobel?

Are you leading the evidence to where you want it to go, or are you following the evidence where it leads? Did you already presuppose that a god exists, before you decided that DNA was evidence for its existence? Or, was DNA the thing that convinced you that a god exists?

Let me add, that when scientists use terms like " language" or "code" to describe DNA, they are not using those terms literally, they are using them metaphorically, for the understanding of laypeople.

And to add one more thing, DNA is pure chemistry. It is mindlessly producing proteins. To be a code or language, it would have to be communicating from one mind to another with the goal of being understood. What are the 2 minds that DNA is supposed to be communicating?

Another is - Can you explain why you became an atheist? But that could easily be a topic for another thread.

I became an atheist because I correctly applied critical thinking to the god claim. I was always a skeptic, but I always compartmentalised my theistic beliefs in my mind to shelter them from critical thinking. As soon as I came to the conclusion that I was not being intellectually honest with myself, I was forced to examine my theistic beliefs with the same level of scrutiny that I used for other supernatural claims.

The bottom line is, the case for the existence of gods has not met its burden of proof (supported by demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic). Until that criteria is met, I will continue to be unconvinced that a god exist.

And if the best you can offer is "DNA is evidence for ID", I am not very confident that you will be able to meet the burden of proof, also.

[Nay_Sayer]

Great responses - very helpful and well argued! I appreciate it.

All in all, quite interesting and a lot of similarities. I need to do some deeper thinking on a lot of what was said, but a couple questions do jump out -

1) How do you deal with the idea of ceasing to exist after death - or doesn't it bother you? No, I will exist forever in nirvana, Pay attention please
2) How do you explain what could be considered evidence of intelligent design (such as DNA) - or the statistical improbability we could have happened by random occurrence. I already did

Another is - Can you explain why you became an atheist? But that could easily be a topic for another thread. I'm not, I am devout and worry for your soul.

Bold Mine Again.

RAmen

[vulcanlogician]

Basically I think if you are causing significant harm to others, without justification, you are comitting an immoral act.

Particularly I find condemning people for behavior that doesn't cause harm to fall into this category. The guilt and repression can cause real harm. Completely unnecessary harm.

Very well said. And that's one of the main reasons I identify as an atheist. If religion didn't cause harm, I'd simply be a guy who doesn't believe; I wouldn't go through the trouble of identifying myself as anything.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hello.

Why don't you post your questions in the open forum? Is there some reason you want to limit/restrict the discussion?

He said "reply OR send me a pm."

I took it he's ok with someone either answering on the open forum or on pm, not that it had to be pm.

[Simon Moon]

2) How do you explain what could be considered evidence of intelligent design (such as DNA) - or the statistical improbability we could have happened by random occurrence.

I forgot to respond to the bolded part of this sentence in my last post.

First, statistical improbability does not add any support for your claim that DNA is evidence for ID. Statistical improbability does not mean 'impossible' without a god intervening. It is statistically improbable that someone will win the lottery, yet happens all the time. Statistical improbable events happen all the time.

It is not possible to determine the statistical improbability of DNA or our existence. We only have one data point. To determine probabilities, we would need many. We only have one instance of our existence, so the only probability we can claim for our existence is 1.

The early earth was like a giant chemistry lab. There were an unimaginably huge number of chemical processes going on all over the earth simultaneously. It wasn't like there was a chemical process that failed to lead to self replicating molecules, then another failure, then another, etc, etc, etc, then, finally, a successful chemical process that lead to self replicating molecules. It was happening in parallel, not in series.

Also, random occurrence is not a fair way to describe it. There are only a limited number of ways, atoms and molecules can come together and react with each other.

[brewer]

Hello.

Why don't you post your questions in the open forum? Is there some reason you want to limit/restrict the discussion?

He said "reply OR send me a pm."

I took it he's ok with someone either answering on the open forum or on pm, not that it had to be pm.

Don't cherry pick.

"If you are, reply or send me a private message - and we can find a time to chat or skype."

I don't think open forum was ever his plan.

[GrandizerII]

For some reason, I missed the question about whether or not I feel guilty as someone who doesn't believe in sin. My answer to that is "yes". Now for your new set of questions.

1) How do you deal with the idea of ceasing to exist after death - or doesn't it bother you?

There are some things about the nature of existence that bothers me, but ceasing to exist after death isn't a problem for me. You die, and that's it. No more pain, no more misery, and no hell to worry about.

2) How do you explain what could be considered evidence of intelligent design (such as DNA) - or the statistical improbability we could have happened by random occurrence.

How is DNA evidence of intelligent design? Stuff happens in this world, which leads to other stuff happening, including the gradual and eventual formation of DNA.

And we didn't happen by random occurrence. We exist in the "here and now" because it is a logical inevitability. Probability, to me, is really about how certain we are of something. But everything that exists is 100% probable (i.e. necessary) given the right contexts and constraints. In this universe, you and I exist now because it is necessary that we do. We do not exist in the long past because, again, it is necessary that we do not.

Another is - Can you explain why you became an atheist? But that could easily be a topic for another thread.

In summary, I just couldn't see myself being intellectually honest while still adhering to a God belief. Everytime I concluded "God", it felt like I was forcing him to be a reality. So, after a while, I just simply dropped it. And now, I'm an atheist.

[Cecelia]

Origin
How do you think we got here - how did humans originate?
Presumably through the process of evolution.

Where did the universe/world come from? Big Bang, God, other?
We don't know, and I'm okay with that.  Big Bang seems to be the best bet at the moment.  Maybe the universe has always been around.  

Meaning
What do you think the purpose of life is?
Everyone has to find their own purpose in life.  

Does human life have meaning? If so, what gives that meaning?
Only meaning that we assign it specifically.  

Are humans more significant than other creatures? Are we special? Why?
More significant?  Not really.  I imagine the world would get by just fine without us.  

Morality
Why do we have moral ethics? Why do some things ‘seem’ bad (like murder)
Morality is a social structure for a means of survival.  Something like murder seems bad to us because survival is a strong instinct.  Other things seem immoral because of years and years of conditioning.

Do good and bad exist? How do you determine what is good or bad?
Not objectively.

Are good and evil subjective or universal/absolute?
100% subjective.  If there were objective good and evil, they could then be proven to every individual rather than having different systems of morality.

If you don't believe in sin, do you ever feel guilty?
Sin is a silly concept.  Do I feel guilty?  Never for being myself like Christianity wants me to.  I feel guilty if I do something I know I shouldn't do--but do anyway.  It's why I don't cheat on my taxes (as tempting as it is).  I feel guilty if I give one of my children more ice cream than the others.  Or if I eat the last piece of pizza, knowing someone else really wanted it.  


Destiny
What happens to us after death?
We return to the state from which we were before we were born.

Is there a heaven / hell?
I don't think so.  If someone were to provide evidence, I might believe in them.  But until then... all we have are crazy anecdotal and old books.

If so, how do you get there? Is there anything specific you have to do?
I don't think there is one, so I couldn't tell you how to get there.  Maybe start in Detroit?  idk.  I guess it could be like Narnia, and you have to go through a wardrobe. 

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

My position is: I don't know the precise mass of Jupiter. The "theistic" position is "Jupiter is 1 kg." In this case I reject the theist's position, but in admitting that I DON'T KNOW... you have lumped me in with people who consider things like 1 kg. I acknowledge that it is not 1 kg. But at the same time I reject 1.898 X 10^27 kg.

-and there you delve into a or irrationality again. If you know that it "isn't 1kg" then you aren't an agnostic and the subject isn't an unknowable.  You don't have to know everything to know something, and you don;t need to know what something is in order to know what it's not.

The part in bold reminds me of a proof by contradiction in mathematics.  Suppose we want to establish the truth of the following statement: there is an object with a certain property such that something happens.  If we take the negation of that statement (for every object with the certain property, the something does not happen) and reach a contradiction, then this tells us that the statement is true despite the fact that we never produced the actual object and verified that the object satisfies the something that happens (construction proof).  Hence, in this particular instance, we know that such an object must exist, yet we do not know what that specific object is.