Questions Ignorant People Ask About God

[Onions]

First off, wanna say I do not think all atheists are ignorant....just used it for the title cause it goes well with the story. Anyways, found this on Facebook and I thought it was really cool so thought I'd share it here for showcasing and discussion. Guideline of the story which you can prefer to read or not - Atheists believe in no God for many reasons, and key ones being 'where is God', ''why is there no equality', etc... so this is a little answer for those who talk ignorantly like that.

Have a good read, and don't hate, appreciate - ...no matter what these type of 'ignorant' people say to this, they can't argue it cause we are simply using the same strategy or tactics that they do when they talk about God so why would it be untrue if we use it against them?...

[Onions]

Well seeing how the title of the thread is "Questions ignorant people ask about God".

I have a question that may be ignorant, then again maybe I am the one who's ignorant. Hopefully some of you in the know can help me out.

My question is regarding the bible story of Noah's Ark. The story as I know it is as follows. Noah hears God speaking to him (this part I can believe as lots of people claim God speaks to them) telling him he's not happy with the wicked ways of the people he recently liberated. Tells him there's a great flood coming and to build a giant ark to save the believers.

Oh yeah, you have to collect a male and female of every species on the planet. This is where I have a little trouble believing this. Where does a guy in the middle east find a polar bear, a kangaroo, a beaver? So anyway, he just did. How do you feed and care for all these animals? It's like running a floating zoo. How did he get the animals to behave? We all know cats and dogs don't always get along. I'd imagine pretty much the same for lions and chickens. Where did he house all the salt water fish/sharks/whales? Surely they couldn't survive in the fresh flood water. What did this ark smell like on the 39th day?

Ok, Ok he just did. How when all this was over did he get the male and female of each species to procreate? I guess he just did.

Could someone please explain this to me. Did this really happen? I ask this because if someone came up to me and told me this I would be inclined to be a tad skeptical. Then again that's just me. I tend to ask a lot of questions.

[Onions]

I'm inclined to think that a certain portion of humans are hardwired to be highly susceptible for belief in the supernatural regardless of social pressures. When presented with questions in which humanity is ignorant of the answer, people in every society on Earth throughout history have invoked the supernatural as an explanation. It's a natural adaptive strategy to cope with the unknown, and I can't see it ever going away.

I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson's talk on the subject:

[Buddhas Hand]

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in God, myself. I just didn't think it was fair to chalk all of religious belief to societal pressures when what makes people believe is a lot more complex than that. I still uphold that even if religiosity may wane as we further understand our universe, it won't completely disappear. The emotional need to ascribe deeper meaning to life is still going to lead people towards religion. The beautiful, mind-bendingly complex nature of the universe is still going to lead to the emotional conclusion that it has to have been created. The fear of death will still lead some to cope with it by imagining an afterlife. The existence of a deity is not a necessary conclusion to reach in dealing with those problems for you or I, but for some people it absolutely would be a part of them no matter how far science advances.

Great post, though. I completely agree that for me, life is most precious and profound if you only have one life to live and only you are responsible for it.

[VICanucksfan5551]

omg, my favorite scientist! LOL

[Coda]

i believe that tim thinks as i do in this regard , that he does not view others who do not share his opinions and beliefs as enemies , though he does seem to want to convert people to his way of thinking which i do not want to do .

i have always been an idealist , when i was younger i hung out with several different groups of people , and without going into detail the bikers would say why do you hang out with the skinheads , and the skinheads would say why do you hang out with those pot smoking dirtbike riders , and the pot smoking dirt bike riders would say why do you hang out with the other 2 groups , in all of those groups of people we had things we shared in common and things we did not , and to empathise with others is to look for what you share in common , this is my interpratation of the word empathise .

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Certainly he does not treat these people as enemies. Keller is one of the most empathetic and caring people I have ever seen. However, I think it is also true that Keller's Christian faith is the most important part of his identity, and anyone who is opposed to it, ridicules it, or wants to eliminate it is definitely his enemy by any standard definition.

[Coda]

I'm inclined to think that a certain portion of humans are hardwired to be highly susceptible for belief in the supernatural regardless of social pressures. When presented with questions in which humanity is ignorant of the answer, people in every society on Earth throughout history have invoked the supernatural as an explanation. It's a natural adaptive strategy to cope with the unknown, and I can't see it ever going away.

I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson's talk on the subject:

[Buddhas Hand]

Certainly he does not treat these people as enemies. Keller is one of the most empathetic and caring people I have ever seen. However, I think it is also true that Keller's Christian faith is the most important part of his identity, and anyone who is opposed to it, ridicules it, or wants to eliminate it is definitely his enemy by any standard definition.

[Coda]

Are we enemies?

[Buddhas Hand]

Certainly he does not treat these people as enemies. Keller is one of the most empathetic and caring people I have ever seen. However, I think it is also true that Keller's Christian faith is the most important part of his identity, and anyone who is opposed to it, ridicules it, or wants to eliminate it is definitely his enemy by any standard definition.

[Russ]

I call BS.

http://www.snopes.co...on/einstein.asp

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Interesting question. I haven't really thought about it before, so my answer might not be very good. I think there are certainly different types of enemies and different degrees of enemies; an enemy of your philosophy or faith (at the very least someone who opposes your viewpoint) would be one type of enemy.

Although I don't think there is any physical animosity between us, there does exist I think antagonism.

I'm supposed to love my enemies. In this case I find it kind of difficult as I find you extremely annoying. However I'll try, and perhaps God will help me out.

What do you think: do you think we are enemies?

[Mr. Ambien]

I watched this, and its very interesting. I think it's fair to say that religious faith has in the past hampered the growth of knowledge. However I think blaming Faith in god on limiting Newton's discoveries is quite out of order. Newton probably did more for science in his lifetime than any other scientist in history. It was his belief in God that made him suppose that the Universe was governed by ordered laws that he could discover. The fact that there was a limit to what he did discover, and the fact that he attributed this unknown to God, is a poor criticism of his religous belief.

To me it is very ironic that Degrasse ends the video by describing how badly designed the Universe is. Does he not see how much more damaging to the pursuit of knowledge this common and logical atheistic belief would be if it was actually assumed in science? Imagine if Newton believed the Universe was unordered, chaotic, and poorly designed. I'd wager that wouldn't have helped him much to make the discoveries that he made. Imagine if the dozens of organs believed to be vestegial had not been investigated for purpose. The examples are endless. I think it should be obvious that the pursuit of knowledge works best if the question "why" is believed to have an answer.

Degrasse's description of poor design is actually kind of bizarre. I can't believe he actually used the fact that the eye has a limited spectrum as evidence of poor design. Certainly he must know that scientists and technicians routinely reverse-engineer products and machines using natural organs including the eye as a basis. He must also know that basically all of these reverse-engineered products are inferior to the original.

[Buddhas Hand]

Heavens no, and I'm a little hurt you'd say that.

If you see me as an enemy, do you wish to see me gone? Do you wish opposing philosophies gone? Defeated, as it were? Do you think your perceived enemies think the same towards you? Do you think I oppose your faith?

I'm curious what your answers will be.

I don't think there's any antagonism and you're imagining things. You must understand that I do not oppose Christianity. I oppose Christianity running my (or anyone's) life, to any degree. I entirely support your right to believe as you will. Do I have to respect your religion in order to respect your right to be religious? I don't think so. And I do enjoy exposing Christian hypocrisy, probably why I'm usually in the thick of these threads.

You're playing to win, my friend. I'm playing so neither of us loses.

[VICanucksfan5551]

I watched this, and its very interesting. I think it's fair to say that religious faith has in the past hampered the growth of knowledge. However I think blaming Faith in god on limiting Newton's discoveries is quite out of order. Newton probably did more for science in his lifetime than any other scientist in history. It was his belief in God that made him suppose that the Universe was governed by ordered laws that he could discover. The fact that there was a limit to what he did discover, and the fact that he attributed this unknown to God, is a poor criticism of his religous belief.

To me it is very ironic that Degrasse ends the video by describing how badly designed the Universe is. Does he not see how much more damaging to the pursuit of knowledge this common and logical atheistic belief would be if it was actually assumed in science? Imagine if Newton believed the Universe was unordered, chaotic, and poorly designed. I'd wager that wouldn't have helped him much to make the discoveries that he made. Imagine if the dozens of organs believed to be vestegial had not been investigated for purpose. The examples are endless. I think it should be obvious that the pursuit of knowledge works best if the question "why" is believed to have an answer.

Degrasse's description of poor design is actually kind of bizarre. I can't believe he actually used the fact that the eye has a limited spectrum as evidence of poor design. Certainly he must know that scientists and technicians routinely reverse-engineer products and machines using natural organs including the eye as a basis. He must also know that basically all of these reverse-engineered products are inferior to the original.

[Coda]

now here is where we are getting to the core of one the major difference's between religious people and non believers , tolerance . i could not give a sh!t if you are opposed to what i believe , it does not bother me if you want to ridicule what i believe[and if it is funny i will laugh to ] and you certainly cannot eliminate what i believe .

i am not saying all or even most religious people are like that but so many believe so strongly that this seems to overide the ability to really empathise with others who do not share their beliefs .

[Coda]

Heavens no, and I'm a little hurt you'd say that.

If you see me as an enemy, do you wish to see me gone? Do you wish opposing philosophies gone? Defeated, as it were? Do you think your perceived enemies think the same towards you? Do you think I oppose your faith?

I'm curious what your answers will be.

I don't think there's any antagonism and you're imagining things. You must understand that I do not oppose Christianity. I oppose Christianity running my (or anyone's) life, to any degree. I entirely support your right to believe as you will. Do I have to respect your religion in order to respect your right to be religious? I don't think so. And I do enjoy exposing Christian hypocrisy, probably why I'm usually in the thick of these threads.

You're playing to win, my friend. I'm playing so neither of us loses.

[Coda]

His subjective perception of the world never changed the world, it was rational thought and approach using real world calculation not related to religion that led to an increase of knowledge.

The pursuit of "why" shouldn't happen until the "what" is known, and when you have so many religious people, Christians included, that think organisms don't/can't evolve, against all scientific proof they do, the pursuit of why is not only a red herring but akin to diving into a fantasy book like Lord of the Rings and living life as if you're living in Middle Earth instead of the real world you're actually in.

Personally I don't mind this self-deluding type of philosophy as some can't fathom existence without their subjective religion and varied amount of principles from it, deity included, but the conflict derives from the use of such fantasy upon other people, like women, like minorities, like gays. Not so much an issue here in Canada today but sure as hell is still a major issue down south.

[Coda]

I think Dr. Tyson would agree with you that Newton achieved the most scientifically for humanity during his lifetime. He practically gushes every time he mentions the man. He's a massive Newton fanboy. I think Tyson is correct in stating that Newton's religious beliefs hampered his discoveries. The statement that Newton made regarding the divine nature of the stability of the orbits was in his Principia Mathematica, published when he was 44 years old. For the next 40 years of his life, he essentially abandoned figuring out this problem, declaring it as unsolvable and attributing it to God. Instead, he focused his efforts on alchemy and theology (which accounts for the majority of his writings). For a man of his genius, the level he reached in physics need not have been his limits. I don't understand how throwing one's hands up and declaring a scientific problem unknowable and only attributable to God can be anything but harmful to scientific advancements.

You misinterpret Tyson's examples of poor "design" in the universe. He's not saying that it's chaotic and unordered. He's saying that if it was "designed" with humans in mind, it's a very very stupid design. Everything out there is practically trying to kill us. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with the vestigial organ comment. Why would scientists not test to see if organs thought to be vestigial have functions? Assuming something is vestigial like that without making sure is bad science.

The human eye is quite nicely "designed", but it is far from perfect. it has some pretty glaring "design" flaws. Aside from our limited view of the electromagnetic spectrum (other animals and human-designed technology can see other parts of the EMS, while we can't), there's also the examples of better "design" in the independently-evolved cephalopod eye. In the vertebrate eye, there's a layer of neural tissue above the photoreceptive cells, hampering vision. In cephalopods, the neural tissue is below the photoreceptor cells, leading to more efficient vision and no blind spot where the neurons need to go back behind the retina. This picture shows what I'm trying to get at, with the vertebrate eye on the left and the cephalopod eye on the right:

I'm sure we'll eventually get to the point where we can design artificial eyes better than natural human eyes, but it's a pretty ambitious goal to better billions of years of evolution and it won't happen easily. There are plenty of other examples where we have "bettered" things from nature already (eg. genetic modification of crops to make them more disease-resistant).

Edit: and if we're not talking about replacement eyes, but instead cameras and other artificial optical equipment, I'd say technology outstripped the human eye decades ago.