Happy Atheist Forum

A few ransoms questions that I would really like a diversity of answers for:


1. How do u be "freethinking".   I think I get it but just wondering what others think


2.  It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

3.  Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution  and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence).  Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.  


Feel free to e mail me about any of this.  I would love to have a back and forth with someone( in a non creepy way...)
My E mail is   aj.ob2012@gmail.com.

Quote from: "JustAJ"1. How do u be "freethinking".   I think I get it but just wondering what others think

You think for yourself and question authority.

Quote from: "JustAJ"2.  It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

I don't align with political parties at all, I don't like political parties.

Quote from: "JustAJ"3.  Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution  and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence).  Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.

There aren't really any big gaps in either and the gaps that are there aren't something the sheds any doubt on the theories in any way... except for people that don't know much about them and/or the scientific method.

Quote from: "JustAJ"Sorry guys but evolution...has a few gaps in it.

Would you be able to provide an example of the "gaps" which would reflect upon the theory in a way that would warrant placing it in a questionable category?  Actually, if you would like to discuss it, please feel free to start a new thread as I don't want to hijack this thread.

Quote1. How do u be "freethinking".   I think I get it but just wondering what others think

Freedom to not be bound to dogmas with the ability to accept being wrong while at the same time being open to new information and observation they may shed new insightful light on any given subject.

Quote2.  It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

Stereoptypical fallacy.. And beliefs always affect political view. Hence, I am secular and do not believe Government should have any particular bias, display bias, or legislate religious ideological constructs. Neutrality, otherwise you end up with places like Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Quote3.  Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution  and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence).  Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.

A few gaps? A few gaps hardly equate to "we don't know" vs filling in a deeper understanding of the gaps.. In contrast, the GOD theory has one massive gap called zero evidence to even remotely give it any credibility over anything else one can possibly imagine.. Hence there are two words that give the answer to all existence, and one of these words is a provable tangible and the other is completely as intangible as magical pixie fairies.. Here we have the tangible "Energy" being source universal set that solves infinite regress, and "GOD"  to which is intangible and can not solve infinite regress, or represent a universal set.

Quote1. How do u be "freethinking". I think I get it but just wondering what others think

I would define it as thinking above and beyond the traditional thoughts of the herd. A Freethinker is someone who is free to question anything openly and follow that trail of thought wherever it goes.

Quote2. It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

I would define myself as a liberal but I am most definitely not a Democrat. There's a tendency for atheists to be liberal but not always. You may want to look into the Objectivist Party.

Quote3. Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school. And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence). Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.

On an Epistemology level I agree: we don't know anything. We only have levels of confidence and even those can or could be deceiving.

On a scientific level: There's no good reason to doubt the theory of evolution in general. There is so much evidence for it. If you invest the time to learn about it I have no doubt you'll agree. We can answer a few questions (Squid's the best at it!) but there is so much fascinating information out there on the subject it seems a shame to limit your knowledge on it based on our brief responses.

Some good books on the evidence would be: Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

For a good understanding of the theory itself: The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
There are some good web resources as well I'm sure you could find.

As for the Big Bang, there are multiple "sub-theories" on the specifics. Its evidence may be as strong as evolution's however I think it is strong enough to draw certain, more broad conclusions. (For example our universe is expanding thus there had to have been an initiator)

Quote from: "JustAJ"I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  

What does this mean: How do u be "freethinking?"

Find yourself another school ASAP, one that teaches how to spell and write properly.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "JustAJ"I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  

What does this mean: How do u be "freethinking?"

Find yourself another school ASAP, one that teaches how to spell and write properly.

"How do you be 'freethinking?'" or "How do you become 'freethinking'?". Needn't be discourteous; I think JustAJ may be genuinely interested in learning.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "JustAJ"I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  

What does this mean: How do u be "freethinking?"

Find yourself another school ASAP, one that teaches how to spell and write properly.

"How do you be 'freethinking?'" or "How do you become 'freethinking'?". Needn't be discourteous; I think JustAJ may be genuinely interested in learning.

No, but we can freely ignore discourteous behavior. Just think of free-thinking as the freedom to think for yourself, and to make up your own mind without being subjected to external controllers.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "JustAJ"I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  

What does this mean: How do u be "freethinking?"

Find yourself another school ASAP, one that teaches how to spell and write properly.

"How do you be 'freethinking?'" or "How do you become 'freethinking'?". Needn't be discourteous; I think JustAJ may be genuinely interested in learning.

My apologies. Bad writing and poor spelling, I don't know, it just realy gets to me. To me it's slack, it's sloppy and when I see it I find it very hard to take whatever point is trying to be made seriously. To me it displays a lack of thought and preparation.

"Free" thinking? Try "THINKING," goddamnit. Hell, what's the use?

I shall now retreat to my dusty old library for a tepid cup of tea. BLAH!

Quote from: "JustAJ"1. How do u be "freethinking".   I think I get it but just wondering what others think

You develop your own life philosophies based on what you have discovered to be true as opposed to what you have been told is true.  It's a evidenced based thought process that is used in all parts of one's life in one way or another.  It's also a word that is generally used to describe atheists, agnostics, and deists who do not follow a religion.

Quote2.  It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

Most tend to be socially liberal because imo that's the only intelligent approach to living in a free society and most people do value personal freedom.  I would not agree that most are democrats quite a few are libertarian or independent and I know some who are fiscally conservative to where they would be a republican if that party were not run by religious nuts.

Quote3.  Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution  and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence).  Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.  

Well we don't know how all this happened...but there aren't any significant holes in evolution or big bang theory; neither of those tell us how all of this happened they are merely pieces of the puzzle.

I'm sorry for the bad spelling. I write most of these on my IPhone and they are usually typed and sent fast but I will try to spell-check alittle closer.

For the third question on evolution I should have worded it better. In all honesty I don't know enough about it to even claim it has gaps, I have just heard that it all fits together except for a few pieces.  But once again I know next to nothing on the topic.

Quote from: "JustAJ"For the third question on evolution I should have worded it better. In all honesty I don't know enough about it to even claim it has gaps, I have just heard that it all fits together except for a few pieces.  But once again I know next to nothing on the topic.

Well, my friend, you've come to an excellent place to learn if you wish.  Try looking at some of the thread over in the ID/Creationism forum and you'll find a lot of information as well as common arguments and criticisms which are addressed.

Find yourself another school ASAP, one that teaches how to spell and write properly. lol




______________
silver pandora beads (http://www.panbeadssales.com/)|buy pandora jewellery (http://www.panbeadssales.com/)|true religion (http://www.etruereligionjeans-sale.com/)|cheap true religion jeans (http://www.etruereligionjeans-sale.com/)

Quote1. How do u be "freethinking".   I think I get it but just wondering what others think

It has to do with seeing the issue from multiple sides and avoiding conclusions until it is thoroughly examined.

Quote2.  It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

Of course they affect political views since such views are defined by who we are, which our beliefs are a big part of.

Quote3.  Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution  and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school.  And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence).  Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.

We know evolution took place about as well as we know that water is wet. Some people do not feel like accepting that knowledge for what it is though because it screws with their worldview. We have to ask questions and look for the answers in order to gain understanding of the world though, so "I don't know" is... Just not enough sometimes.

Quote from: "AJ"1. How do u be "freethinking". I think I get it but just wondering what others think

Follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, no matter which of our favorite preconceived notions fall to the wayside.

Quote2. It seem like most atheists are democratic liberals ( no offence I don't want a political argument). Just wondering if anyone thinks belief affects political view and how.

Sure it does.  

Quote3. Why can't people just accept " we don't know". Sorry guys but evolution and the big bang theory and such has a few gaps in it ( I believe, not to well educated in it thanks to my crappy catholic school. And I think god is just a made up reason to explain these things( again no offence). Why can't people just relize that there isn't a definite answer and that we don't know how all this happened.

I have no problem accepting "we don't know".  I have a problem saying, "We don't know, and it's pointless to try to learn."  The fact that an explanation is incomplete should not be a justification for quitting the job of learning.  It should rather be a call to renew our efforts.

Quote from: "i_am_i""[strike:ema2kaaq]Bad[/strike:ema2kaaq] Poor writing and poor spelling, I don't know, it just rea[l]ly gets to me.

I love irony.

i would like to apologize for claiming that the theory of evolution had any gaps.  I have been studying the subject for a while and realized that it is a lot more "gapless" than i thought.

But i had one question that i couldn't find the answer to, so i thought i would ask it here.

What caused the big bang?  What caused the bang?


 (This probably doesn't belong in this section.) I'm sorry

No one knows what caused it.  It may not have had a reason at all.  There's certainly no evidence that it did.

And it may not have happened at all, may have been another start to the universe, or maybe not.  There are several theories that have merit.  We don't know exactly what happened for sure.  Personally I like the physics entailed in the big bang theory but I don't know what came before, what sparked the expansion, etc.... and you know what?  I'm okay with that :hail:

This is the real root of religion: this distaste for uncertainty.

Quote from: "JustAJ"What caused the big bang?  What caused the bang?

At this time, unknown. But it is worth understanding that the term 'Big Bang' was first used by an English atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle). At the time the universe was considered to have been around forever and was in a 'steady state' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory), Hoyle agreed with this view. When it was discovered that where ever you look in the sky that what you could see was moving away there was a lot of scientific head scratching. If everything is moving away from you it means that space itself is expanding. It doesn't mean that things are moving through an infinite space from a starting point (like an explosion), it means that space itself is getting bigger (like blowing up a balloon) and has been expanding for a finite length of time. Hoyle immediately realised that if the universe was expanding then the 'steady state' he though was right was in fact wrong! So the term Big Bang is a little misleading, it should really be The Big Blow!

However addressing your initial question. And this is just informed speculation as there is no testable hypothesis for what happened. We do know that we don't know what happened because all the rules that appear to work in the universe we see today stop working (ie are able to predict actions) very close to the initial point the universe first appears to have come into existance. Before this moment space and time appear not to have existed so any idea of cause and effect is meaningless. So there may well not have been a cause in the sense that you and I understand it on a day-to-day basis.

Of course the problem with this 'unseen cause' is that humans hate not understanding why something happens! In days gone by our ancestors had knowledge but lacked understanding and invoked superstition to fill the gap. Two examples of this would be, the Sun rising and diseases killing people. Our ancestors could see the Sun rise, it did it reliably every day so they had knowledge, they could see it happen, but the didn't know why it happened, they had no understanding. So they put God into the equation so they could sleep at night! Our ancestors saw people get ill and die from diseases, they had knowledge, but they did not understand why people got ill and died, they had no understanding. So they put daemons into the equation so they could feel they understood the world around them. The 'first cause' argument for the 'Big Blow' is exactly the same. We have knowledge that the universe exists, we can interact with it, but we don't know why it is here. So some people can't cope with not knowing why it is here so they invoke superstition to explain the existance of the universe. Are you seeing a pattern here?

It also appears that the early universe was incredibly simple, comprising protons, electrons and a shed load of energy all mediated by a number of forces such as gravity and electro magnetism. All we can see around us can be explained by the interaction of these particles and forces over the known life time of the universe.

Not knowing why something is the way it is, is not a good reason to say something like 'God did it!' That answer has been repeatedly discredited over millennia.

I hope this helps a little.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is the real root of religion: this distaste for uncertainty.

Absolutely! Religion is simply institutionalised superstition in the same way that science is just institutionalised curiosity.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "JustAJ"What caused the big bang?  What caused the bang?

At this time, unknown. But it is worth understanding that the term 'Big Bang' was first used by an English atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle). At the time the universe was considered to have been around forever and was in a 'steady state' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory), Hoyle agreed with this view. When it was discovered that where ever you look in the sky that what you could see was moving away there was a lot of scientific head scratching. If everything is moving away from you it means that space itself is expanding. It doesn't mean that things are moving through an infinite space from a starting point (like an explosion), it means that space itself is getting bigger (like blowing up a balloon) and has been expanding for a finite length of time. Hoyle immediately realised that if the universe was expanding then the 'steady state' he though was right was in fact wrong! So the term Big Bang is a little misleading, it should really be The Big Blow!

However addressing your initial question. And this is just informed speculation as there is no testable hypothesis for what happened. We do know that we don't know what happened because all the rules that appear to work in the universe we see today stop working (ie are able to predict actions) very close to the initial point the universe first appears to have come into existance. Before this moment space and time appear not to have existed so any idea of cause and effect is meaningless. So there may well not have been a cause in the sense that you and I understand it on a day-to-day basis.

Of course the problem with this 'unseen cause' is that humans hate not understanding why something happens! In days gone by our ancestors had knowledge but lacked understanding and invoked superstition to fill the gap. Two examples of this would be, the Sun rising and diseases killing people. Our ancestors could see the Sun rise, it did it reliably every day so they had knowledge, they could see it happen, but the didn't know why it happened, they had no understanding. So they put God into the equation so they could sleep at night! Our ancestors saw people get ill and die from diseases, they had knowledge, but they did not understand why people got ill and died, they had no understanding. So they put daemons into the equation so they could feel they understood the world around them. The 'first cause' argument for the 'Big Blow' is exactly the same. We have knowledge that the universe exists, we can interact with it, but we don't know why it is here. So some people can't cope with not knowing why it is here so they invoke superstition to explain the existance of the universe. Are you seeing a pattern here?

It also appears that the early universe was incredibly simple, comprising protons, electrons and a shed load of energy all mediated by a number of forces such as gravity and electro magnetism. All we can see around us can be explained by the interaction of these particles and forces over the known life time of the universe.

Not knowing why something is the way it is, is not a good reason to say something like 'God did it!' That answer has been repeatedly discredited over millennia.

I hope this helps a little.

Thanks for the summary, Tank.  Makes me want to add a few Physics books to my Amazon list...

Would u say that atheists who accept the theory of the big bang would need a certain amount of "faith" in it like religious people do?

Quote from: "JustAJ"Would u say that atheists who accept the theory of the big bang would need a certain amount of "faith" in it like religious people do?

I don't think it would be equatable to anything religious because the big bang theory is based on evidence while religious faith by definition is belief despite of or in the absence of evidence.

I'm not saying it is "religious" just that u would need a certain amount of faith to accept the theory. faith in the sense of the begining.

I mean the theory is nearly air tight except (from my limited knowledge)  the very start,  how the big bang "banged".    so would u need a small amount of faith to accept the theory.

Well, the parts of the theory that aren't concrete have multiple possible explanations that are put forth to explain those bits until an answer is found, so no, I still don't think accepting the big bang theory in any way is equatable to the kind of faith involved in religions.  Those possible explanations are still based on known evidence and in no way is there a point where scientists start making positive claims that are accepted as truth before the claims are verified.  I disagree with your comparison.

Quote from: "JustAJ"Would u say that atheists who accept the theory of the big bang would need a certain amount of "faith" in it like religious people do?

No, I don't not, if one uses the word 'faith' in the religious interpretation of blind and unquestioning Faith. There is no one word that sums up my position with regard to scientific theories. I would hope that my understanding comes down to a rational and reasonable appreciation of how the scientific method works, which leads me to accept that the theories resulting from this process are an acceptably accurate description of reality, within our current levels of information. That is not Faith as such, as Faith is an unsupportable position.

Within my ability, level of knowledge and education I should be able to understand any scientific theory, I can follow biological arguments like a bloodhound. Cosmology is a little harder but I feel still within my capabilities. Quantum mechanics I can follow at a surface level but no more really. So do I have 'Faith' in scientists that expound about Quantum Mechanics? No, I have faith (with a little 'f') that those scientists are well educated experts in their subjects and are basically trustworthy people, as most are. I have the same level of faith in these people as I do in the surgeons that opened up my eyes and changed my lenses when I got cataracts.

Does that help?

The big bang is grounded in part in Hubble's Law.  When Edwin Hubble peered into a telescope and put a spectrometer on it.  He noticed that when galaxy and/or stars moved away from us the spectrometer results had a shift towards the red end of the visible spectrum.  When stars/galaxies moved towards us the spectrometer showed a shift towards the blue end of the physical spectrum.

The phenomena can be better described by the Doppler Effect.  The analogy here is how we perceive the placement and movement of sound.  When you sit in your car and you hear an ambulance driving in from behind you.  You will notice the pitch of the sirens increase as the ambulance approaches, as in becomes more shrill.  When the ambulance passes and moves away from you the sirens become more dull when the pitch decreases.  The reason for this is that the sound waves are compressed coming towards you and expand as they move away from as in from the moving source.

Light does pretty much the same thing.

Why all the jazz about this?

Hubble's Law states that recession velocity, the speed of which the galaxies are moving from us increase with distance.  So galaxies that are much farther away are moving much faster from us.

From this we can THEORETICALLY infer a central point in time where there was some "bang" with the outer energy and matter flinging away faster than the inner energy and matter.  This is a reasonable model, by the way.

There are PROBLEMS with this okay?  And it is a crazy mix of simple explanations and at times overly complex explanations.

(somewhat simple explanation)
First and foremost, we assume that the Hubble Constant is correct on a linear scale.  As most engineers, scientists, physicist will tell you, nothing in nature is linear.   In small intervals... maybe.  Any more than that not so much.

Second, we assume that we have theoretically assured distances from the "brightest" objects in the universe, ie Type I Supernovas, Cepheid stars, etc.  Unfortunately, I cannot hold a tape measure to a couple billion galaxies, measure their distance, and speed against a half dozen or so Type I Supernova and come up with a confident scale of distance.  It is like trying to measure speed and distance of foam on a waves from a seashore based on how bright they appear at noon.  We can infer a rough idea, but it is hard to deduce it to any certain physical scale.

So again, why all the jazz?

(this is the complex part)
I will submit this much.  The Big Bang Theory is pretty solid.  The theory of relativity supports this, that is the speed of light is constant and is the same in all inertial reference frames and with that we can extrapolate the age of the Universe based on the speed of light.  Relativistic results has been observed and tested rigorously since Einstein presented his theory.

Since, science is not a belief and not a religion, I accept these gaps in the theory.  There are far more glaring gaps in religion.  Religion is a system of beliefs and faith and proclamations of mostly untestable proofs.  Even the historicity of all of it is tenuous at best.  It is prima facie, religion is a system of beliefs for which there are no falsifiable proofs.  Dogma, faith, creeds are stated and cannot be proved or disproved.  Science is a system of knowledge acquisition set against a few centuries worth of practicing the Scientific Method.  In science, theories are NOT beliefs, and are equally provable or disprovable.

This method is far from perfect, but it was never intended to be perfect to begin with.  Theories are just that, theories.  It is a tool that seems to work when explaining something interesting or intriguing.  If it does not work, or its scope is limited it is perfectly all right to discard the theory or modify it.

Theories are NOT statements of faith of beliefs.  This is where the WHOLE argument falls flat on it face.  In other words, it is moot to even consider accepting any theory even "when there are gaps."  Furthermore, "accepting it" or "not accepting it" is irrelevant.

The overall fallacy is assuming that pure science requires faith and belief.  It does not, it never did, and it never will.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "i_am_i""[strike:uvoso3k5]Bad[/strike:uvoso3k5] Poor writing and poor spelling, I don't know, it just rea[l]ly gets to me.

I love irony.

I like drinking.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "i_am_i""[strike:206ngbxw]Bad[/strike:206ngbxw] Poor writing and poor spelling, I don't know, it just rea[l]ly gets to me.

I love irony.

I like drinking.

I second that...

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I love irony.

I like drinking.

I second that...

That would be Irony Brew then?