Are Atheists More Religious Now?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you please detail these problems?  The Earth has been around for 4.6-4.8 billion years; life, for 3.8 billion and perhaps more.  Also, saying "single cell" is misleading, because in a primordial earth, chemical reactions are occurring amongst quadrillions of molecules per second.  

I am in no way a new earth creationist, but I don't see how those claims can be substantiated. I'm thinking about it, and I can't, for the life of me imagine how any science or scientist could determine the age of the earth. I mean really. Maybe it's a lot younger. Maybe it's nearly as old as the universe. The idea that it has rotated around the sun 4.6-4.8 billion times and that life started 3.8 billion years ago--I think those are just made up numbers. What if an asteroid that eventually became the earth was moving through the Milky way for 100 billion years?

Like I said, I'm not a creationist, but I can't imagine it is possible to date our planet that way. I mean, what assumptions were made to give a date so precisely, a difference of .2 billion years? It's starting to sound a lot like faith to me, and it's starting to sound about as credible as using the generations in the bible to date the earth.

Google "solar system formation".

Enjoy!

[Sophus]

Now I find more and more that they are extremely close-minded, scared of debate, blindly follow leaders like Richard Dawkins, request donations, and stick together very strongly--like the early Christians.

Hello Edward and welcome...
I can't speak for everyone but I don't blindly follow any man, but I often like the thinking of Richard Dawkins. Not always do I agree with his philosophies, so to speak, but his science and his metaphysics, in my opinion, are frequently brilliant. Actually if you take a look at the RD website or forum (well, erm... there used to be a forum. I don't know if they preserved the old content or not) a lot of the atheists and agnostics there critique him or his posters. Even if it's not the main crux they're disagreeing with they might pick apart something within the content of the article. Example an analogy or something.

It has been my experience that most atheists (never all, as with anything) are more independent thinkers. Also, I personally haven't seen any afraid of debate, in fact it has been quite the opposite. Do you have an example of this?

As far as the donations go, it's for a secular cause, not the pockets of preachers. Fighting for the separation of church and state, keeping Creationism out of the classrooms, secular charities, etc.

So, are atheists becoming more religious? Is bald becoming a more beautiful hair color?  :pop:

But all this agnosticism ends up getting mixed with a little faith to end up atheism.

I don't pretend to know anything I don't. Hence not believing in God.

On the dating methods: Squid touches on it here.

[Tank]

God. God is the filler in the cracks of our evolved mind.

I read what you wrote, and I agree that God is often used as a gap-filler. But there are lingering questions. The deepest, in my opinion being why does anything exist at all, and why does the evolution of man seem to be racing towards some higher state of being (e.g., via technology) when it really does nothing for our survival as a species. For that matter, why would a species even know to survive, or desire it?

I'm not saying the answer to all of this is God. I'm only saying that blind chance and natural selection doesn't quite seem to cover it all.

I'll take the 'bait and switch' as you started the thread, the subject was initially 'Are Atheists More Religious Now?', then brought in the question of the nature of God and then look, as if by magic what a surprise! 'How did the universe start?' It was so predictable.

However.

a)

'

why does anything exist at all'  don't know, TBA, watch this space (pardon the pun). Insert name of deity or personal wish fulfilment here if you must, just must have an answer where there is none, yet.[/list]
b)

why does the evolution of man seem to be racing towards some higher state of being (e.g., via technology)' The answer is the 'virtuous' circle of curiosity and tool use, later qualified as science and technology. The advance of our understanding of the way the world works improves our ability to make new tools which further advance our ability to to understand the way the world works etc etc. Some of the spin off's from this process satisfy other needs in humans, such as communication. Telegraphs, Telephones, Radio, Television and the Internet are all applications of progressive technologies and all are related to one of the defining characteristic of humanity, an obsessive desire to communicate. [/list]
c)

'when it really does nothing for our survival as a species.' In your opinion. However I would contend that the human ability to positivity effect change in their environment, e.g. build a shelter, process a protein into food, build a system to defend the planet from an extinction event collision, would be the one thing that could ensure the survival of the human species. Given that the vast majority of species are extinct because of environmental change our ability to exist across a huge range of environments, due to our technological capabilities, is the ace up the sleeve for humanity. T-Rex didn't have a sleeve and look what happened to him   [/list]

[hismikeness]

Evolution and chaos/natural selection have problems. One of the biggest is the vast amount of time needed for life to evolve into what we see around us, and even more is the absolutely ridiculous odds of a single cell ever evolving in the first place from organic chemicals--and then surviving to evolve! Atheists just tend to believe it and ignore the problems--that's the forerunner of religion.

Would you please detail these problems?  The Earth has been around for 4.6-4.8 billion years; life, for 3.8 billion and perhaps more.  Also, saying "single cell" is misleading, because in a primordial earth, chemical reactions are occurring amongst quadrillions of molecules per second.  

Here's the problem. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend. We are now trying to think about multiples billion.

I read it once, something like:
A billion seconds ago it was 1973.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive (allegedly)
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the stone age
A billion days ago no creature on Earth walked on two feet.

I can't verify the claim made in the above section, because I'm just not that good with math and that many zeros. And that is just a billion days. Multiply that times 365 (a tough figure to imagine groups of... unlike pairs or a dozen) and that is merely a billion years. Now quadruple that and thaaaaat far back is when the Earth and the rest of the solar system was forming.

The moon formed formed 30-50 million years after the solar system started forming (so 4,450,000,000 years ago instead of 4.5 billion...) when a body approximately the size of Mars crashed in to the cooling proto-Earth. The point is, on a scale of billions, even 50 million seems pretty insignificant.

So Thump, if the OP can't quite grasp billions (as admittedly, neither can I, nor anyone I know) than how will he get quadrillions. Anyway, I was under the impression that after billion came brazillion.  

I've never liked the "there just doesn't seem that there is enough time for life to begin as what it did and evolve in to the varieties and complexity that it did" notion. It has taken a collecion of the most brilliant members of our species to even come close to really fully locking down the idea of just how much of something a billion is.

And for me, the reason I visit this site, is because my notions are constantly challenged by others, many of them have posted on this particular thread, and because I read and digest their comments and discussions, I learn.

One of my favorite quotes puts it best:

We stockpile the discoveries of the most brilliant members of our species, allowing us, however strained and with whatever struggle it involved, to slowly ascend the ladder of knowledge, maybe compensating for the fact that any one of us is just too stupid to figure it all out.

[Sophus]

I read it once, something like:
A billion seconds ago it was 1973.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive (allegedly)
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the stone age
A billion days ago no creature on Earth walked on two feet.

Interesting post. Very close.

A billion seconds ago it was Tuesday, December 5th 1978.
A billion minutes ago it was 109 AD.
A billion days is 2.74 million years.
 

[Squid]

Atheists often have a great deal of faith. They assume, for instance, that evolution is the reason for everything, and yet there's yet to be found a way that life could have started on this planet. They assume the big bang happened, but as I have recently found out, there are problems with the red shift theory that make it unlikely to be true (search: red shift and binary star problem). We assume the standard model of quantum mechanics, but the as of yet undiscovered Higgs boson is the key to it. If it doesn't exist, the standard model is essentially wadded up and thrown in the garbage. But all this agnosticism ends up getting mixed with a little faith to end up atheism. Because if one thing is a fact I have observed in my dealings with atheists, they don't want God to exist.

Hence, the religion of atheism--perhaps.

I see your point you're trying to get across but I think it may be based on an assumption about atheism that isn't entirely accurate and may apply only to a portion of atheists, however, let me address a couple of other things first.

You mention assuming that evolution is the reason for everything, while I can't speak for others (although I think many here will agree with me), we don't see evolution as the reason for everything only a an explanation for the diversity of life we see today and how those populations change over time.  The origin of life is a separate question all together and one which is not explained by evolutionary theory because it was never meant to - evolution, by definition, does not deal with the origin of life.  For that realm it is a matter of an interdisciplinary research involving organic chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics and other specialized fields.  However, to insinuate that research in that area has yielded to answers or clues is not correct.  If you ever have time (even though it's now a few years behind the current research since it was published in 2005 I believe) a decent lay book on the subject is Robert Hazen's Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins.  From that book which is written by an origin of life researcher you can get a feel for how small the field is in terms of those actually performing research actively, full time.  Even though you can also see how these people have made some interesting finds including self-assembly of polypeptides, amino acids, phospholipid vesicles among other things.

As for the Big Bang, much of the more complicated discussions are far outside my area of knowledge as astrophysics is not my forte.  Nevertheless, as far as I am aware there are several lines of solid evidence to support the major tenets of the Big Bang theory.  As for the binary systems "problem", are you referring to the alternating shifts in spectroscopic binaries?  Or are you referring to Halton Arp's claims?

However, all this is besides the point that we're addressing where you allude to atheism being agnosticism coupled with faith.  Here's where I must disagree but only partially.  In terms of atheism you have two major sub-types of atheists - strong and weak or some prefer the terms gnostic and agnostic atheists.  From an epistemological standpoint I can see how gnostic atheism can be viewed as having some matter of faith to proclaim a positive and immutable stance in regard to supernatural entities.  However, this wouldn't necessarily hold true for agnostic atheists which would be those who have at this time seen evidence supporting those supernatural entities as lacking and therefore a tentative conclusion is utilized until other evidence is presented to the contrary.  I can also understand some skepticism (even among other atheists) at the assumption that agnostic atheists will actually examine contradicting evidence to their conclusions as this can be a "take me at my word" sort of thing.  However, the requisite inquiry involving said evidence can be see in meaningful discussion and the willingness to read, examine and understand those opposing ideas - for instance, in relation to evolutionary theory, I have a nice little collection of creationist and intelligent design literature - I've actually had acquaintances give me some strange and disapproving looks when they saw me reading Behe's Darwin's Black Box  or Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.  

However this can get into another language usage problem if we start equating faith with conclusions based upon evidence which have foundational assumptions.  Yet these assumptions are often not with merit and have, in the past, been established therefore equating it to faith would need to take a much broader idea of the term.  If a wide concept of faith is to be used in relation to anything that does not utilize absolute knowledge then it is a moot point as everything we discuss will be in some part based upon faith.  But this becomes simply another problem due to language usage and the differing assumptions of what each party has in regard to the terms being focused on.  It's been my experience that many criticisms of particular scientific theories is due to simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the usage of key terms that are involved such as when someone argues that evolutionary theory isn't valid because it is "just a theory".  Although that is a fairly elementary example I think it communicates my point on the matter.

As for the claim that atheists "don't want God to exist" - I'm sure some don't, although it may depend on which version of a god exists - the jealous, short tempered one or the more passive one.  Take Jesus for example, the avatar of god in human form - a deity I could sit down and have a beer (or I guess wine was more his thing) with is fine by me however, some booming voice from above demanding sacrifice...not so much.  However, this is not really the main point.  Would it be accurate to say that some atheists don't want god to exist?  Yep.  Would be accurate to say that all atheists don't want god to exist and this is the primary motive behind their atheism? I would have to say, no.  I think that too many people will often make the assumption that atheism is a stance that is taken because of anger, resentment, selfishness and narcissism which may apply to some but it is not the driving force which led all atheists to where they are.  I was actually quite happy where I was as a non-denominational, non-biblical literalist, generic Christian yet my journey into the world of philosophy and science as well as comparative religion lead me from Christianity to more Eastern schools of thought such as Taoism and Zen and finally to an agnostic atheist with Taoistic tendencies (that is Taoism as laid out by Lao Tzu and not the crazy mysticism thing that others later shaped it in to).  I wasn't some bitter person with a chip on their shoulder blaming a deity for all the worldly ills and then declaring that I don't believe in them anymore.  However, in many things in which involve the question of existence of a particular object, entity or the like you will always have those who dislike it and shove it off because they don't like it, those "true believers" who accuse those who don't accept it of being "blind" and telling them that they'll "be sorry" when they find see the truth and then there's most everyone else in the normal distribution around the mean - those who aren't so full of zeal on the matter.  Therefore what may be fact in your observation does not generalize to the entirety of atheists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mike, I'm pretty sure the "boggledyness" of the big numbers is exactly what causes this fallacious argument.

Sophus, thanks for giving some much-needed perspective.

I get very frustrated with this "refutation" of evolution because it almost invariably computes the odds serially, when in reality every environment can be seen as a massively parallel processor.  It also ignores the phenomenon of autocatalysis.

[Edward the Theist]

Let me ask you something. How did you hear of this God you're talking about? Did someone tell you about it and you believed what they had to say? Did you read it in the Bible? How?

I heard about him, I believe, at around 5 or 6 at a Christian school I went to. I think that was the first place I ever heard about God. But there's no sense in going down this road. My next paper is a philosophical one about the nature of God. When I'm finished, I'll anounce it here and provide a link. I think you'll see that what I consider God, and what Christians consider God are not the same thing.

[Edward the Theist]

I blame myself.

I really should narrow the topics that I bring up in posts. Obviously, I can't respond to the current barrage of opinion expressed, though I have read it all. But in order to respond intellectually, I'd actually have to study for about a year. But I blame myself, because I'm the one who broached the topics.

Honestly, I'm not all the concerned about evolution. I just think it required a guiding hand of some sort, a consciousness. It just seems that chance would have wiped out life as often as it created it, thus never allowing for evolution to occur. But one could argue that the first life form was too hardy to kill off so easily--okay, fine.

But that chance would have created such a structure...I mean it's possible, but I just can't accept it that way. It simply takes too much faith on my part, and I don't have it. I'd rather just say "I don't know." I do know that most mutations kill off the mutant before it can ever breed, so evolution not only has to occur by blind chance, but also by the natural selection of fortuitous mutations.

I honestly don't think you could set up a more unlikely scenario, but perhaps extremely unlikely scenarios is what's required if you remove all notions of God. And by God, I don't even mean a person. I mean a force like consciousness that has volition and the ability to shape the physical universe. Still, if there is no God, and maybe there isn't, I don't think anything would actually exist. If there were no God, it would seem more likely that there would have been an eternal "nothing." No universe, and certainly no life.

[Tank]

Edward

Are you the only person who believes what you do in the sense of your God perception being unique to you?

Regards
Chris

[Thumpalumpacus]

I blame myself.

I really should narrow the topics that I bring up in posts. Obviously, I can't respond to the current barrage of opinion expressed, though I have read it all. But in order to respond intellectually, I'd actually have to study for about a year. But I blame myself, because I'm the one who broached the topics.

No sweat, it's a busy thread.  

Honestly, I'm not all the concerned about evolution. I just think it required a guiding hand of some sort, a consciousness. It just seems that chance would have wiped out life as often as it created it, thus never allowing for evolution to occur. But one could argue that the first life form was too hardy to kill off so easily--okay, fine.

Our particular iteration of life (DNA-based) may not be the first form of life on Earth; it may just be the only one which succeeded.

But that chance would have created such a structure...I mean it's possible, but I just can't accept it that way. It simply takes too much faith on my part, and I don't have it. I'd rather just say "I don't know." I do know that most mutations kill off the mutant before it can ever breed, so evolution not only has to occur by blind chance, but also by the natural selection of fortuitous mutations.

First, EbNS only deals with how life evolves.  How life arose is the field of abiogenesis.

Selection pressures work on random mutations, so evolution is not just "chance", and it's inaccurate to portray it as such -- especially the phrase "blind chance", because mutations are culled by a selecting agency, even if that agency has no conscious will.  Slow cheetahs tend to starve, and that is certainly not chance.

Most mutations don't happen in the gametes, and so are not passed on; therefore, they are not exposed to phenotypic expression of selective pressures at all.

Finally, I don't know of a single scientist who has said that he "knows" life arose by abiogenesis.  Do you have one in mind?

I honestly don't think you could set up a more unlikely scenario, but perhaps extremely unlikely scenarios is what's required if you remove all notions of God. And by God, I don't even mean a person. I mean a force like consciousness that has volition and the ability to shape the physical universe. Still, if there is no God, and maybe there isn't, I don't think anything would actually exist. If there were no God, it would seem more likely that there would have been an eternal "nothing." No universe, and certainly no life.

Nothing is a very unstable state.  Also, virtual particles show that occasionally matter comes out of nothingness.

[pinkocommie]

I blame myself.

I really should narrow the topics that I bring up in posts. Obviously, I can't respond to the current barrage of opinion expressed, though I have read it all. But in order to respond intellectually, I'd actually have to study for about a year. But I blame myself, because I'm the one who broached the topics.

Honestly, I'm not all the concerned about evolution. I just think it required a guiding hand of some sort, a consciousness. It just seems that chance would have wiped out life as often as it created it, thus never allowing for evolution to occur. But one could argue that the first life form was too hardy to kill off so easily--okay, fine.

But that chance would have created such a structure...I mean it's possible, but I just can't accept it that way. It simply takes too much faith on my part, and I don't have it. I'd rather just say "I don't know." I do know that most mutations kill off the mutant before it can ever breed, so evolution not only has to occur by blind chance, but also by the natural selection of fortuitous mutations.

I honestly don't think you could set up a more unlikely scenario, but perhaps extremely unlikely scenarios is what's required if you remove all notions of God. And by God, I don't even mean a person. I mean a force like consciousness that has volition and the ability to shape the physical universe. Still, if there is no God, and maybe there isn't, I don't think anything would actually exist. If there were no God, it would seem more likely that there would have been an eternal "nothing." No universe, and certainly no life.

The best way for anyone to be able to understand evolution without having to trust what anyone else has to say about the issue (which seems to be what you mean by 'faith' in this instance) is to really educate yourself on the topic.  I think the hypothesis that there is a god is far far FAR more unlikely than anything verified by the scientific method has to offer.  I've heard "it seems so far fetched, so impossible, there has to be something more" applied to evolution more than once - my response is that just because you personally can't fathom it, that is not an adequate criticism of the process nor does it in any way suggest logically that a god exists.  This argument seems like a complicated 'god-of-the-gaps' argument - and that's fine if you personally feel comfortable accepting it, but there's no logical reason anyone else needs to accept it - they may just understand the evolutionary process more than you do so they aren't as confused by the process and thus lack the need for a deity to make it make sense.

[Squid]

I really should narrow the topics that I bring up in posts. Obviously, I can't respond to the current barrage of opinion expressed, though I have read it all. But in order to respond intellectually, I'd actually have to study for about a year. But I blame myself, because I'm the one who broached the topics.

You'd be surprised how much you can learn right here

Honestly, I'm not all the concerned about evolution. I just think it required a guiding hand of some sort, a consciousness. It just seems that chance would have wiped out life as often as it created it, thus never allowing for evolution to occur. But one could argue that the first life form was too hardy to kill off so easily--okay, fine.

First we have to make a distinction between what is evolutionary theory and what is not.  Evolution, by definition, does not deal with the origins of life.  A concise definition of evolution is:

the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers)

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Understanding Life (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

No mention of the origin of life, why is that?  Well, as I mentioned before evolutionary theory was never formulated or meant to explain the origin of life but only changes in populations of organisms over time.  The field of abiogenesis is what is inquiring into the origins of life - a separate field from evolutionary biology relying more upon the areas of organic chemistry and geophysics then evolutionary biology.  The research, however, is fairly fascinating stuff and while fleshing out the process which led to what we call life is difficult, slow and frustrating sometimes the small number of dedicated researchers have made some amazing and enlightening discoveries along the way as I had mentioned previously.

But that chance would have created such a structure...I mean it's possible, but I just can't accept it that way. It simply takes too much faith on my part, and I don't have it. I'd rather just say "I don't know."

The assumption here is that the processes at work are completely random and this is not true.  Reactions will happen in accordance to the properties of the molecules involved.  Just as Miller showed a particular arrangement of atmospheric gases and natural energy can produce organic compounds and as Dave Deamer showed that phospholipids can self assemble into vesicles as well as how Claudia Huber and Gunter Wachtershauser demonstrated the self assembly of small polypeptides, there is not some completely random, chaos in which life arose.

I do know that most mutations kill off the mutant before it can ever breed, so evolution not only has to occur by blind chance, but also by the natural selection of fortuitous mutations.

Most mutations are not deleterious though, most are effectively neutral and also, a mutation does not automatically mean it is harmful to the organism - mutations occur all the time yet we see no ill effects from most of them.  Occasionally, a mutation or mutations will produce a trait that aids the organism to survive and reproduce.  If this mutation can give the carrier a better chance at producing more offspring then it would be considered advantageous and most likely see the frequency of that allele spread through the population over generations.

I honestly don't think you could set up a more unlikely scenario, but perhaps extremely unlikely scenarios is what's required if you remove all notions of God. And by God, I don't even mean a person. I mean a force like consciousness that has volition and the ability to shape the physical universe. Still, if there is no God, and maybe there isn't, I don't think anything would actually exist. If there were no God, it would seem more likely that there would have been an eternal "nothing." No universe, and certainly no life.

It's not that it's an "unlikely process", it seems you have an inaccurate idea of what it actually is.  I've made much more in depth posts on this subject here on the forums, just do some searching around and you can find them.  One of the lasts ones I did was actually in response to a guest column written in a local newspaper which you can read here if you have the time.

[Edward the Theist]

Edward

Are you the only person who believes what you do in the sense of your God perception being unique to you?

Regards
Chris

Yes. Absolutely. In fact, that is a theory I want to write on some day, the fact that there is a primordial force of consciousness, but everyone personifies it in their own way--atheists included. Atheists just see it as their physical self. I see it as "my Father," and I am His son. I pray to my God and He speaks to me, and I have seen many "miracles" in his name. But I know that my Father is a psychological construct I use to understand and get in touch with, if you will, the primordial consciousness that prevades everything--the primordial consciousness, in fact, that I will return to when I die, just like you will, just like everyone does.

I admit the above is a pretty religious statement, but you asked. If one day I can explain it philosophically so others can understand it and refine it or diminish it, and if one day I can explain it mathematically, or at least model it mathematically, then I will be blessed. But right now the paragraph above and a paper I wrote on consciousness is all I have. You can read the paper here: http://www.veridican.com/paper1.pdf

[i_am_i]

Let me ask you something. How did you hear of this God you're talking about? Did someone tell you about it and you believed what they had to say? Did you read it in the Bible? How?

I heard about him, I believe, at around 5 or 6 at a Christian school I went to. I think that was the first place I ever heard about God. But there's no sense in going down this road. My next paper is a philosophical one about the nature of God. When I'm finished, I'll anounce it here and provide a link. I think you'll see that what I consider God, and what Christians consider God are not the same thing.

Irrelevant. What Hindus consider God and what Christians consider God are not the same thing either.

No, my point is this: you've conctructed a world view around a concept that has existed since primitive humans formed into tribes, that concept being an invisible all-controlling creator of the universe and everything in it. There just must be an explanation for all this, whatever all this is. So primitive humans made up God.

I don't have any statistics to back me up but I'd say that the majority of atheists are such because they've come to reject that idea as being born of superstitious ignorance, no matter how many brilliant philosophers still engage themselves in the god question.