Atheists? Could you explain this to me, please?

Question

Do you think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism?
I can accept that, even if I don't agree with you.

BUT...you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

Where is the "logic and reason" in this stance?

Answer 1

Dearest Angeltree,

After reading these posts, I was wondering just how many 14-15 year old goth kids do you think are on this site?

...So many Scripture quotes taken out of context; so much "lofty" misinformation; so much zeal that has surpassed knowledge; so many facts adjusted to fit theory,...so much justification to simply stereotype the lot of them...

But I wouldn't do that.

Angeltree, what you have fallen prey to here dear is the fact that because you believe something different, you are not even welcome at the table of discussion (unless you first forfeit any notion of life above the human being, or outside of your five senses.) Since you believe in God, you are immediately dismissed from having anything significant to contribute; hence you are mocked. That is the "athiest disposition," generally speaking (at least here it is.)

As for you troubled teens posting from your parent's basements, we are going to be sending you to bed without supper if you don' t behave.

Answer 2

Sure thing, glad to enlighten you.

I personally didn't "arrive" to the position, it was my default position; I weighed the evidence afterwards and came to the conclusion I was right to begin with. But that's a minor difference ;)

I'm afraid you're generalizing a bit with the next statement, there's no actual requirement for belief in how conciousness is formed. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true. I happen to think it is.


Now, since you went with the hard sciences in your assumption, I'm not going to adress the philosophical arguments, or the psychological. I'm also not going to bother with complexity or chaos explantions, instead I'm going to keep it on the basic level.

I think you might be mistaken because of a basic lack of understanding in physics? You're thinking bohr's atomic model, and interactions of idealized atoms (the billiard ball analogue), right? They are classically considered predictable, and governed by strict rules.

However, when you look at quantum effects, you'll notice that some of the rules, and interactions are in fact not so precise. Superpositions can be seen as a particles existing in two separate states at once. This makes most results in a sense negotiable, they're point of views more than laws.

Now, with all the possible interactions, there's nothing concrete. You could start from the exact same conditions, and come up with a different result every time. So the result isn't inevidable, it's not determined by laws.

As for free will, I'd say it works in this framework like a guide. The things we experience, our memories, what makes us...us, gives the broad outlines of possible conclusions.

The result from the interactions within our brain might be in a sense random, but it still is the result of our accumulated experiences. It's free, in the sense it's not predetemined, and will in the sense that it's a conclusion only the person in question can come to.


I guess....

Logical enough?

Answer 3

Nope. There are levels of organization in the universe. What happens at the atomic level is largely a matter of inertia and the basic forces of matter. Biologically, we are affected by the forces of chemistry, but biological structures are complex enough that random uncertainty develops when an organism interacts with its environment. At the level of self-awareness, we can be emotionally affected by internal hormones and chemical balances, but we also react to what we perceive about our environment, which is affected by our previous experience and our assumptions, informed or uninformed.

A bank shot using one billiard ball is easier to manage than a chain reaction involving seven billiard balls. An engineer may understand the properties of a steel beam but that does not mean he knows enough to construct a practical suspension bridge. The more complex a structure is, the more unpredictable its behavior is. There are just too many processes and to many initial vectors to effectively account for.

At the level of system mechanics, a general prediction of dynamic equilibrium might be achieved (especially in a closed system), but the actions of individual elements cannot. One might argue that if one could account for it all, one could predict with greater accuracy, but that level of precision isn't achievable, therefore unprovable. Even the perception of "free will" is effectively the same as the real thing. The fact that we can ask ourselves, "what if?" demonstrates that choice is not an illusion.

Answer 4

That is an oxymoron : "fixed reaction" a reaction depends on the paticulars of the original action . Hence it can not be fixed . ( you can never fall down the stairs exactly the same way twice - Shivaree .)
Second Atheism isn't a reaction but a process in which truth and proof are DETERMINED through intelligence .
Your question is flawed . The first part is fine but the second part makes no sense .

Answer 5

I was raised without education about spirituality, never heard the word atheism as a kid, but I chose it - but yes I was basically raised atheist.

Listen, this "BUT...you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics." - what the hell does that mean. What do you mean by fixed, but yes i suppose I agree with the rest.

Answer 6

BUT...you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics

never assume something unless you're sure without a doubt, my thinking and actions are based on my life experiences and what I've learned and like others, vary because I recognize I'm an individual with INDIVIDUAL perspectives...

Answer 7

I arrived at my conclusions after weighing the evidence and looking at the two sides. But who ever said that our thinking and actions are fixed reactions? This is the first I've heard of that. Our thoughts are unique unto ourselves. The biochemical reactions are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, but the thoughts that result from them are not.

Answer 8

OOOOOH, nice catch 22 there!
But "fixed" reactions?
If they were fixed, animals would be unable to do anything that required judgement. Also, it's more to do with neurotransmitters and their interactions with the chemistry of the cells of the brain.
The neurochemistry of all animals with a nervous system is so complex as to be inaccessible to anyone without an advanced degree, so I'm not going to embarrass myself by speculating further, but maybe we should look for a dummies' guide to neurochemistry before concluding on this.

Answer 9

A star for creative thought. However, ultimately the question doesn't really hit the mark. The issue you're dealing with isn't really atheism but determinism. Not all atheists are determinists, and not all determinists are atheists, for example Calvinists are christian and determinist. So maybe you should look for determinists in the Philosophy section.

Answer 10

It's somewhere in between. I think it's absolutely true that I can't believe in God without evidence or personal experience that leads me to believe.

But my position is only fixed if the lack of evidence is also fixed. I'd certainly change my mind if there were a reason to do it.