Oh this looks as if it is going to be
good ...
Let's take a look at this, shall we?
I am a Christian and Bible teacher (8th-10th grade) at a preparatory school. I will be posting here mostly on behalf of my 8th grade Apologetics students who have questions for atheists like you! In light of that I thought about adopting a screen name like "Legion" since we are many, but then I thought better of it . . .
Anyway, just be aware that when posting I will be representing more than just my own thoughts. In fact, almost never my own thoughts.
Here are a list of questions for you and we would be very grateful for any you are willing to answer!
I wonder how many of these puported "questions from 8th graders" are copy-pasted from a creationist website? Again, inquiring minds would like to know. But, let's continue, and break out the dissection kit (an essential possession for any invertebrate zoologist) ...
1) Do you base your whole belief (or non-belief) system on Science? If so, why, instead of God?
That's two questions in one. But I'll let that laps slide for the moment, as it's more important to head to the
substance.
Item number one. I dispense with "belief" altogether, the reason being that all too often, supernaturalists demonstrate that "belief" consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. This is, of course, in direct violation of the proper conduct of discourse, which demands that
all assertions be subject to whatever tests can be devised to determine their veracity or otherwise. In the absence of such tests, assertions possess the status "truth value
unknown", and remain in that limbo until relevant tests are devised and conducted. Indeed, this is one of the valuable lessons we learn from science, which succeeds precisely
because it tests assertions to destruction. Those assertions failing the relevant tests are discarded, except for pedagogical purposes, while those that pass the relevant tests, form the basis of scientific theories.
I accept science as a valid and rigorous enterprise, because it manifestly works as such, and has manifestly delivered goods that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even
fantasising about. The authors of your mythology (though they were not unique in this matter - this applies prtty much to
all authors of pre-scientific mythologies) knew nothing about the existence of the continental land mass you are currently residing upon, they knew nothing about large parts of the biosphere, they knew nothing about the fundamental forces of nature, and while compiling their mythology, presented therein assertions that have been found to be plain, flat, wrong, the moment scientists started investigating the relevant subject matter. Your famine-free, disease-free life surrounded by expensive electronic toys, is
entirely the product of diligent scientific endeavour, and owes
nothing to your mythology. Science isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of
evidence. Do learn this elementary lesson before proceeding.
Moving on ...
2) Do you have any least favorite religions? Most favorite?
No. I regard them all as failed attempts to provide an explanation for the universe and its contents. Furthermore, I regard them all as having exerted a malign influence upon the development of humanity. The most malign influence of all, being to propagate the insidiously dangerous idea, that uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions is not only purportedly acceptable, but purportedly constitutes a sound foundation for policy decisions. This idea is not only flat out wrong, it has been demonstrated time and again throughout history to be lethally harmful.
3) Are there any Atheistic schools, the same way there are Christian schools?
Here in the UK, where I live, the education system doesn't have "atheistic" schools as such. Religious subjects are taught even in the most secular establishment, but therein, are taught principally in the context of comparative mythology.
4) Why did you become an Atheist? Or: What made you switch from being a Christian to being an Atheist?
The biggest influence on my early life, was a work called
The Children's Encyclopaedia, edited by one Arthur Mee. All 10 volumes are still resident in my home. Mee wrote this work, in collaboration with a fairly substantial team of educational specialists, with a specific aim in mind (bear in mind he was alive in the Edwardian era, which accounts for that aim). His aim was to prepare young children to become model British citizens, as defined at that time, which meant being wedded to God, King and Country. Unfortunately for him, in my instance, this aim failed, not least because he made the mistake of arranging for the science sections of the encyclopaedia to be within easy reach of the section on religion. The science sections were, despite being outdated today, a
tour de force in the era in which they were written, and were compiled by some of the best science educators alive at the time. The message that
repeatedly leapt from the pages thereof, was "you don't have to take on trust what we tell you, you can go out and discover the same entities and phenomena for yourself". That was a
wonderfully revolutionary message for a curious 6 year old. Consequently, I went out, and, where possible, sought to discover if the wonders being described in those pages were right. My first microscope went a long way toward helping in that direction. Those science sections taught me, that the world can be known through diligent investigation, and that one can perform
experiments to test one's ideas. One can imagine the fun I had once I obtained my first chemistry set, with that notion under my belt!
The religion section was a
woeful disappointment by comparison, offering up a diametrically opposite message to the science sections. The religion section, at bottom, said "here are some mythological assertions, treat them as fact, regardless of whether real world data is saying something different". I saw that as a gigantic fraud even at six years of age. Paradoxically, I have to take my hat off to Arthur Mee, for making the business of comparison so easy, and making it manifestly obvious which of the two were more majestic and wonderful to embrace.
5) Why do you think it’s a good idea to be an Atheist?
Because there is zero evidence for merely asserted mythological entities. The good part being, of course, that one can change one's mind without distress, if evidence for a god-type entity
does arise in future. However, I am also aware of the fact that even
defining a god-type entity in a manner consonant with the vast wealth of observation we now have, will on its own be a monumental task, and one that mythology signally fails at. Finding
data pointing to a god-type entity will, if it ever happens, be headline news around the world, and result in the discoverer thereof being a guaranteed candidate for a Nobel Prize. That this has not happened yet, should be telling you something important.
Indeed, that's a misconception about atheism that I shall subject to the discoursive minigun right here and now, so that NO doubt is left as to the nature thereof, at least when considered in its
rigorous formulation. Atheism, in its
rigorous formulation, is nothing more than a suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It does
not involve presenting contrary assertions, indeed, when conducted properly, atheism, does
not involve presenting any assertions at all. It consists, at bottom, of "these are YOUR assertions, YOU do the work of supporting them". All we have to do is sit back and watch the usual suspects fail comically.
Indeed, I'm on record on several other forums, as stating that [1] I regard the existence question (that is, of a god type entity) as
unanswered and currently unanswerable, [2] once answerable, almost certainly likely to falsify all of our mythologies at a stroke once actual data is available to examine, and [3] that any entity truly consonant with a properly constructed, robust definition of 'god type entity' will almost certainly be so unlike anything encountered before in human experience, that the people best placed to understand it once the data arrives, will be particle physicists, because these people deal with counter-intuitive phenomena on a routine basis in their research.
In short, I don't "reject" your god, I merely reject your mythology as being competent to inform me about any actual god that exists.
6) Do you feel happier since you became an Atheist?
I don't remember a time when I wasn't an atheist. The question therefore does not apply.
7) If you are hungry you eat, and if you are thirsty you drink, but when you die, what is the solution to death?
Does there have to be one? The mere fact that you assert that there does, on its own leads to the question I've just asked.
Quite simply, all the evidence available to me, points to death being, in short, the final shutdown. Power off, game over. Plus, some of the fun aspects of such topics as cardiac physiology (I learned a
lot about this following my angioplasty) and the vagaries of metabolic processes (that chemistry set led me to some interesting avenues to explore in my later education), tells me that numerous mythological assertions are, quite frankly, nothing more than failed attempts at wish fulfilment. For example, quite a few of your vital nutrients, without which you will die in fairly short order, have a dark side to them, that ultimately leads to your life being finite. For example, oxygen is a vital repiratory gas, without which you will die of asphyxiation in about three to five minutes. But that same oxygen gas you are so reliant upon, as an obligate aerobe, will wreak havoc upon critical metabolic processes, if it manages to oxidise the wrong molecules. Organisms that have efficient antioxidant enzymes tend to live longer than those with inefficient ones, but even the best are cut down eventually. As for glucose and triglycerides, all vital energy sources for our bodies, they have their own fun flip side that one learns about in biochemistry, and here, that knowledge of cardiac physiology comes into play to add to the hilarity. Because, wait for it, the part of the lymphatic system that delivers triglycerides (fats, in short) to your bloodstream, does so ... right into your coronary arteries. There are plenty of places where this connection would be far better located, say, for example, into the arteries supplying the liver, which is the organ that's on the front line for fat metabolism, but no, those fats are dumped straight into your coronaries, all the better to fur them up and precipitate heart attacks in later life. A feature we share with the rest of the placental mammals, I might add.
If the resurrection (of Jesus) never happened, then why did the Apostles and many more Christians die for it?
People have died for bad ideas throughout history. Doesn't stop those bad ideas being bad ideas. This is a bit like saying if Muhammad was wrong, why are so many Muslims prepared to be suicide bombers.
9) How would you explain a bacteria with a motorized flagella?
And it's at
this point, that I harbour suspicions about the veracity of this list of questions. This is one of
the "hot button" questions, variations on which can be found on dozens of creationist websites, though of course none of them actually cover in proper depth the scientific research that has been conducted into this topic. Speaking of which, which of the 15 or so scientific papers in my collection on this would you like me to bring here?
10) How would you explain the fact that humans are always seeking God?
I'm not, and neither are millions of others. But I'm used to supernaturalist presumption in this regard.
Those that claim to be doing so, invariably are the products of supernaturalist indoctrination at an early age. Though I notice it's extremely rare for anyone to "seek" a god
other than the one enjoying local cultural hegemony. I wonder why?
11) Why do you believe what you believe?
As I said above, I dispense with "belief" altogether. If a postulate does not enjoy evidential support, I regard it as inherently discardable.
12) Do all Atheists believe in the Big Bang?
This isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of
evidence. Such as the cosmic microwave background. Learn about it in proper physics classes.
13) If you believe in the Big Bang, why don’t you believe God caused it somehow?
Ignoring the presumption inherent in your latest question, given the answer I gave previously, try the following. We have evidence in abundance for testable natural processes. The scientific literature provides evidence for these by the supertanker load. The evidence for your mythological magic man is precisely zero.
14) Is there anything wrong with God? If so, how can you prove He is wrong?
This presumes the existence of this entity in advance, which you have yet to establish by means other than mythological assertion.
However, there is plenty wrong with
mythological assertions about this entity, not least the matter that several of the assertions are mutually contradictory. The authors of your mythology were execrably bad proof readers.
15) What did you find to be more true about Atheism than Christianity?
Atheism isn't a "truth claim", it's a
suspicion of your truth claim. Do learn the difference.
16) Do you think that any sort of eternal something must exist?
Best people to ask that would be the cosmologists down the corridor.
17) What do you feel is your purpose for living. Or: what is the purpose of your life?
Learning. Problem being, of course, that there's already too much data for one human being to encompass in one lifetime, so I have to be selective. Thanks to that nice Arthur Mee, learned to choose wisely from an early age.
18) How would you respond if the Bible was shown to be historically accurate?
It isn't. I'm aware of numerous instances where actual history, and the archaeological evidence, says that your mythology was fabricated.
19) Assuming you believe in evolution
BZZZTTT! And here I'm going to lace up the titanium armoured nonsense stomping boots, fire up the minigun, and have at it.
Evolution is
not a matter of "belief", it is an
observed fact. An observed fact that is accompanied by possibly
the best supported scientific theory in the entire output of modern science. There are, if a proper audit is ever conducted, in excess of
one and a half million scientific papers containing the evidence for evolution, including
direct experimental tests of evolutionary postulates. My own collection of papers in the field is woefully incomplete, but if you ever want to try and dismiss the validity of evolution, you have to ask yourself which of the 3,818 scientific papers on the subject in my collection, you want me to bring here.
what do you think caused us to evolve?
The same testable natural processes applicable to the rest of the biosphere. Inheritance plus variation plus selection.
20) In light of the Big Bang, do you believe that the universe was created out of nothing?
Once again, I
dispense with "belief". Do learn this lesson.
As for the actual nature of the instantiation of the current observable universe, this is
an active research topic in cosmological physics. I've spent enough time reading papers from some of those cosmological physicists, to know that there exist a number of options for the testable natural processes applicable to said instantiation, and NONE of them involve the fatuous supernaturalist "nothing". Indeed, the people who
genuinely believe that the universe was created out of "nothing", are
those supernaturalists who assert that the universe was a gigantic conjuring trick on the part of their favourite magic man. So let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all, shall we?
21) Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a Moral Law?
Oh dear. You really are treading in territory you didn't prepare for, aren't you?
I'm aware of numerous scientific papers covering the evolutionary and biological basis for our capacity for ethical thought, and the emergence of the same capacity in other primates. How many of those papers would you like me to bring here?
Oh, and while you're at it, can you explain why a good number of "pastors" in various US churches, end up on prime time news being accused of various serious criminal offences? I have a nice little list of these, that's been growing since I started in back in 2010 or thereabouts.
22) Do Atheists ask for forgiveness?
Is there an actual point to this question? I see none.
23) Why do you believe in the singularity if you have know idea what came before it, or how it was made?
Once again, read my lips ...
I don't do "belief".
Furthermore, if you're talking about the cosmological singularity (a topic I doubt features heavily in the day to day conversations of 8th graders), this is again
a matter of active research. Said research includes two papers by Stenhardt & Turok, in which they propose a singularity-free mechanism for instantiation of the observable universe. If your tensor calculus is up to it, I'll bring the papers here.
24) Why do you believe in evolution
BZZZTTT!
Once again,
evolution is not a matter of "belief", it's an OBSERVED FACT, accompanied by a supertanker load of evidence.
if you have no factual evidence that apes actually became human?
We ARE apes. So much so, that Linnaeus, back in 1747, wanted to place humans and chimpanzees in the same taxonomic Genus. You can read the letter in question, at the Linnaean Correspondence, maintained by the University of Uppsala in Sweden, where Linnaeus spent much of his working life. The letter can be read in full
here. Here's the text of the relevant part of that letter, in the original Latin:
Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.
This translates as follows:
"It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha,[22] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.
But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."
Indeed, he was lamenting
religious interference in his science in that letter. Note that he wrote that letter
fully sixty two years before Darwin was born.
I'll also present an example of the science that leads to the conclusion that we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, courtesy of Ken Miller, starting with a nice video clip:
Here's a transcript of the relevant part of that video, which I suggest you read
in full before attempting to cherry pick:
The second thing that you saw at the trial, was that when data was introduced at the trial, which I and another witness introduced from whole genome sequencing, the intelligent design advocates just literally had nothing to say. We weren't asked questions in cross-examination, the other side never brought it up, they never argued against it, they just left it. Here's an example.
Many of you may know that a few months ago the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published. Therefore we can compare our genome to these primate relatives. What do we find? I want to show you one striking finding that dates to about a year ago. You all know that evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the great apes - the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orang-utan. Well, if that's true there should be genetic similarities, and in fact there are. But there's something that's really interesting, and has the potential, if it were true, to contradict evolutionary common ancestry, and that is we have two fewer chromosomes than the other great apes - we have 46, they all have 48. That's very interesting. Now what does that actually mean? Well first of all, the 46 chromosomes that we have - you've got 23 from Mom and 23 from Dad, so it's actually 23 pairs - these guys have 24 from each parent so they have 24 pairs. So everybody in this room is missing a pair of chromosomes, so where did it go? Could if have gotten lost in our lineage? Ah-ah - if it got lost, if a whole primate chromosome was lost, that would be lethal. So there's only two possibilities, and that is if these guys really share a common ancestor, that ancestor either had 48 chromosomes or 46. Now if it had 48 - 24 pairs, which is probably true, because 3 our of 4 have 48 chromosomes - what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused. So we should be able to look at our genome, and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of two primate chromosomes. So we should be able to look around our genome, and you know what, if we don't find it, evolution is wrong - we don't share a common ancestor. So if - how would we find it?
Well, biologists in the room will know that the chromosomes have nifty little markers - they have markers called centromeres which are DNA sequences which are used to separate them during mitosis, and they have cool little DNA sequences on the ends called telomeres. What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused? Well what would happen is the fusion would put telomeres where they don't belong in the centre of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres. One of them might become inactivated, but nonetheless it should still be there. So we can scan our genome, and you know that if we don't find that chromosome, evolution's in trouble.
Well, guess what?
It's chromosome number 2.
Our chromosome number 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes - this is the paper from Nature a little more than a year ago - and I put up a little of the paper, I'm sorry if it's technical but look at what it says! "Chromosome 2 is unique to our lineage. It emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates." Those of you who have not kept up with how much we know about the genome should pay attention to this because you'll be amazed at how precisely we can look at things ... the precise fusion site has been located at base number 114,455,823 to 114, 455, 838 ... in other words, within fifteen bases ... and you'll notice - multiple sub-telomere duplications - the telomeres that don't belong, and lo and behold, the centromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome 13. It's there, it's testable, it confirms the prediction of evolution. How would intelligent design explain this? Only one way - by shrugging and saying "that's the way the designer made it" - no reason, no rhyme, presumably there's a designer who designed human chromosome number 2 to make it look as if it was formed by the fusion from a primate ancestor ... I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm a theist in the broadest sense, I would say that I believe in a 'designer', but you know what, I don't believe in a deceptive one, I don't believe in one who would do this to try to fool us, and therefore I think this is authentic - it tells us something about our ancestry.
That's before we cover such matters as the fossil record, endogenous retrovial insertions, etc.,
all of which constitute a
huge body of evidence linking us to the other apes.
25) What was it that told you that God is not real?
What told me that the assorted gods of mythologies, yours included, were not real, was the incompetence of the mythologies.
26) What standard of right and wrong do you hold to?
That which is consonant with reciprocity.
* Twiddles thumbs and waits *
65 Replies
7657 Views