A few questions for atheists...

[dysert]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

 

[Jimmy D]

No takers?

Sure, there's a chance. It might seem unlikely, but who knows what those organic materials, circumstances and first life were like?

 

[Cute Tink]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Well, organic refers to living matter, so yes.

If you're referring more to the idea of abiogenesis, yes I do believe that it is possible.

 

[dysert]

So far we've got two yes's and a lot of people ignoring the thread. I was hoping for more participation.

 

[SkyWriting]

So far we've got two yes's and a lot of people ignoring the thread. I was hoping for more participation.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...

 

[dysert]

Undaunted, I will be posting Question 2 tomorrow.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Yes. The concept makes sense to me.

Seems consistent with how the world and life work.

 

[Ophiolite]

So far we've got two yes's and a lot of people ignoring the thread. I was hoping for more participation.

Well, frankly the problem is that atheists, agnostics and Christians can all justifiably answer yes to your question. The fact that you have directed it exclusively to atheists suggests you do not believe that is the case. That is a foolish position and I try to minimise my response to foolish positions. Perhaps others feel the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Believe? No.

If I were going to investigate the question, abiogenesis would be the first thing I would look at since it seems like the most plausible explanation, and the most conducive to investigation. However, I don't have any beliefs attached to it.

 

[dysert]

Well, frankly the problem is that atheists, agnostics and Christians can all justifiably answer yes to your question. The fact that you have directed it exclusively to atheists suggests you do not believe that is the case. That is a foolish position and I try to minimise my response to foolish positions. Perhaps others feel the same.

There is no such suggestion. I am just posing benign questions. I have no agenda except to better learn what atheists believe about some things. To call my position foolish because you *assume* what I do or do not believe is rude.

 

[dysert]

Believe? No.

If I were going to investigate the question, abiogenesis would be the first thing I would look at since it seems like the most plausible explanation, and the most conducive to investigation. However, I don't have any beliefs attached to it.

Would you answer any differently if I changed "believe" to "think"? (It's not supposed to be a trick question.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Would you answer any differently if I changed "believe" to "think"? (It's not supposed to be a trick question.)

I would describe it more as "suspect", or "if I had to pick just one explanation . . .".

If I were to use an analogy, I would point to Jimmy Hoffa. Just like life obviously had to start some time, Jimmy Hoffa obviously died at some point in history. If I were forced to give just one answer, I might say "bottom of the East River with cement shoes", but I wouldn't be that upset if I were wrong. I would also be curious as to what the real answer was. However, I wouldn't consider little grey aliens kidnapping Jimmy Hoffa as an explanation worth wasting much time on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Just a follow up thought . . .

In these types of conversations I am usually careful with using the word "believe". We all use words loosely in non-technical or general conversations. However, you seem to want to understand exactly what atheists think, so I think it is worth the time to be as accurate as possible.

There are things that I believe in. I believe that we should leave the world a better place than what it was when we came in. I believe that gaining new knowledge is a very worthy goal. I believe that giving and earning respect helps create a vibrant community. I believe that passing on our knowledge to the next generation is one of our most important tasks.

My beliefs deal with how I think the world should be. That is quite different from what I consider knowledge of how the world is. It is a bit like Hume's Is/Ought problem. How life came about is a question of knowledge, facts, and investigation. It isn't a question of belief, faith, or worldview.

Does that make sense?

 

[dysert]

Just a follow up thought . . .

In these types of conversations I am usually careful with using the word "believe". We all use words loosely in non-technical or general conversations. However, you seem to want to understand exactly what atheists think, so I think it is worth the time to be as accurate as possible.

There are things that I believe in. I believe that we should leave the world a better place than what it was when we came in. I believe that gaining new knowledge is a very worthy goal. I believe that giving and earning respect helps create a vibrant community. I believe that passing on our knowledge to the next generation is one of our most important tasks.

My beliefs deal with how I think the world should be. That is quite different from what I consider knowledge of how the world is. It is a bit like Hume's Is/Ought problem. How life came about is a question of knowledge, facts, and investigation. It isn't a question of belief, faith, or worldview.

Does that make sense?

Yes. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not sure I understand the question fully. I'm quite certain life is not a supernatural event and that its start here on earth is wholly natural. I hesitate to use terms like "chance" however.

There is much science to be done until we know the mechanics though.

 

[Gene2memE]

As an atheist, I need no particular belief about the origin of life.
I'm an atheist because I don't feel the claims of believers have satisfied their burdens of proof.
So, I have no requirement to believe anything in particular abut the origin of life.

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

No.

Because, a "chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment" would not produce a living entity. That is a dramatic over-simplification of abiogenesis, to the point where it becomes ridiculous. Its a horrible, horrible strawman.

I'm not a biologist or chemist, but as I understand it, life traces its origins to prebiotic chemistry, which developed very gradually into organic chemistry (polypeptides and then basic proteins), which developed into stable, self replicating macro molecules (RNA/DNA), which developed into simple, self replicating cells (simple bacteria), which then developed into more complex organisms.

There were multiple stages, probably covering several hundred million years, between the initial early chemical stages and the eventual development of what we'd consider "life". In between that, there is a fuzzy series of transitional stages of things that are difficult to classify as "life" but are still clearly not just chemistry.

 

[[serious]]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Not an atheist, but I will still answer as I don't view God's direct involvement as being necessary for the emergence of life.

Do you believe that:
there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary? Yes
at just the right time? I don't think there was any certain time it needed to happen. a couple dozen million years either way wouldn't have made much difference.
circumstance? Not sure what this would mean other than the other items specified
and environment? Yes.
to produce a living entity? The exact line between unambiguously living and unambiguously not living is kind of blurry, but yes.

 

[dysert]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

I'm not sure you've worded your question very clearly, what is "some form of intelligence"? Is a thermostat on my central heating at home one?

What homeostatic functions are you referring to?

Why would anyone "need to believe" how they function anyway, just name one (e.g regulation of body temperature) and I'm sure someone can explain to you how it works.

I'm not being deliberately evasive here, your question really isn't that clear to me.

 

[Nithavela]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Yes.