Questions, Questions, Questions.

I get a lot of questions on this site. A lot of them come in the email, but thankfully some are on this site. I must thank one wonderful individual for really taking an interest in the site. Most of these questions come from her, but are really representative of the types of questions I get in my daily life, on this site, and in email.

ON THE TOPIC OF SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION

so what is your belief..do you believe that you came from an APE?

No. I in fact know that I came from my parents. However, I believe this question is asking if I accept evolution as a true model for describing the path to humanity as it is now. To which I answer this; Evolution is true. It is the best and most reliable way to describe the way we came to be as we now are. It is the only model that is based on evidence, and proof.
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own two eyes?? As you have said “no one believes anything until proof is provided or demonstrated” so how could you accept evolution?”

No. I have never seen evolution happen with my own 2 eyes in real time. However, from the fossil record, and the fact that viruses constantly evolve, i understand, and see the evidence for evolution. For more information on this topic one can always read anything by Darwin, Howells, or even go visit museums. Also this website offers many insights.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

many people reply with something like this;

But how can u believe them (Scientists)? You believe them because you have faith in them…

No. I don’t believe them on faith. I believe the scientific researchers, and academics because I have good reason to believe that they are correct. For these reasons;

1: Process of education. Scientists have to go through and education process, most of the time all the way up through PhD levels. This process of education has been tested and shown to produce many intelligent individuals who have been able to properly research, and study many questions of the world. This process of education is undeniably the best method we have for learning.

2: Their methods are testable. Their methods, and findings are readily available for many people to read, and even duplicate.

3: There is an outcome. When it was determined that viruses evolve in order to stay alive in the face of antibiotics, researchers observed this, tested it, and released findings. At a time when people were now being effected by viruses that were no longer responding to the previous antibodies, the scientific community offered an explanation, complete with testable methods to describe and analyze what was happening. They also offered a new solution based on these methods. And the solution worked. This was not a fluke, and not based on faith. Problem, research, testing, outcome.

4: Peer Review and academic processes. When methods are released, outcomes given, and papers written, they go through a lengthy process of review and even retesting before being released. This is to ensure that the proper information was obtained, and the findings are actually a result of the scientific method.

So to sum up, its not faith. I have good reason to believe that these particular people and institutions are releasing good information. The good reason is past experience and discovery. Now, if some dude has a box on the side of the street and said he “had some science” and proceeded to show how he could disprove Einsteins theory of relativity, naturally I would ask for credentials, past works, affiliations, where his funding comes from, etc… I would not just believe him.

On knowing things.

Here is a question that I got that I am not sure what to do with. And as much as I appreciate the comments and questions, this is sort of base level philosophy. But perhaps this is where we need to start.

If i will be asking you if you have a brain…definitely you will argue with me that you have a brain..but i can’t see your brain either because it is hidden beneath your skull..am i right..unless you gave me your brain i will believe the fact that you have a brain…

Lets dive right in. Have I seen my brain? actually yes. Thanks to modern science I have had to have 2 MRI’s, which looked something like this;

but lets say I never had that. How can I prove to you I have a brain without removing it? Well very simple. Science has shown us that a brain is necessary for motor function, thinking, walking, seeing (need I go on?). There have been literally millions of autopsies, surgeries, MRI’s etc… that prove the existence of a brain. Through this scientific method, and observation, we now understand that a brain is necessary to be alive and function. So, if I am alive and functioning, we know that I must have a brain. We do not need to look at it to prove that it is there, the outward indicators are proof of the brain. This model has been tested, and retested, and observed. This is how we know it to be true.

 

On Why I don’t Believe in God

I get these questions the most.

i do wonder why you don’t believe in God?
Is there something bad experience happened to you?
Did you once believe in God?

or

Why do you hate god?

Why are you mad at god?

What did god do to you?

Well. I don’t hate god, I am not mad at god, nothing happened to me, god didn’t do anything to me, and furthermore, I never believed in god. I can not be mad at, hate, or have something happen to me by something in which does not exist. I do not believe simply because there is no good, justifiable reason for someone to believe in god. God can not be demonstrated. God can not be tested. There is no proof that god exists.

That is why I don’t believe

and yet another question;

Arent you worried about the afterlife?

Very Easy to answer. No. There is no afterlife, so I do not worry about it.

I welcome more questions

-GRAtheist-

Advertisements

7 responses to “Questions, Questions, Questions.

  1. Being an Agnostic I have to chime in

    ” No. There is no afterlife, so I do not worry about it.”

    There is no demonstrable evidence of an after life. But what is your evidence that there is no afterlife?

  2. well, the burden of proof is not on me. I do not have to have evidence to disprove something which does not exist and has no evidence for.

    The lack of evidence for an afterlife is proof enough that it does not exist.

  3. When you say there is no afterlife, I believe it puts the burden of proof on you to disprove it to a believer.

    A believer can be informed from their experience like a ghost story or a paranormal experience.

    A believer could pseudo scientifically site the supposed 21 grams of weight lost upon death to give evidence of a soul or continued consciousness after death.

    The believer could actually scientifically site many of the mind body health benefits of such things as prayer and meditation.

    negatively stating that “there is no afterlife” is the same as positively stating when you die “your mind is annihilated or extinguished or ceases to be.”

    I ask you for scientific evidence for that

  4. You are actually approaching this wrong. I did not first make the claim that there was no afterlife. Someone else made the claim that there was. Because they present no evidence, I say it does not exist.

    Example

    “Arent you worried about the afterlife?” (this is a question that also makes a statement of fact, that there is an afterlife).

    It is not my duty to offer evidence to disprove it, it is on the person claiming an afterlife to prove an afterlife. Because the positive statement of fact was made by someone other than me, the burden is on them.

    but lets approach this:

    “negatively stating that “there is no afterlife” is the same as positively stating when you die “your mind is annihilated or extinguished or ceases to be.””

    We can prove this by monitoring the electrical pulses and sections of the brain that respond to stimuli. We can tell what parts send signals and have reactions. This only happens when someone is alive, and does not happen when they are dead. Just from this activity we can safely say that when you die your brain function ceases to exist, and brain function is the only known process for thoughts and experiences.

  5. “When you say there is no afterlife, I believe it puts the burden of proof on you to disprove it to a believer.”

    No. The burden of proof is still on the believer. I only say there isnt because they are not offering testable evidence that backs up their claim. The fallibility of their claim is my evidence.

    If I told you there was a spotted elephant in my backyard that you couldnt see until you were dead, and you said “no” that is not provable so you are mistaken. This doesnt put any burden of “proof” of you. YOu can not disprove something which was never demonstrated to begin with.

  6. I think when you make a plain statement such as “There is no afterlife” even in response to a question or in what ever context, you are obligated to explain it.

    which you do when you wrote

    “We can prove this by monitoring the electrical pulses and sections of the brain that respond to stimuli. We can tell what parts send signals and have reactions. This only happens when someone is alive, and does not happen when they are dead. Just from this activity we can safely say that when you die your brain function ceases to exist, and brain function is the only known process for thoughts and experiences.”

    Which as you know, sounds reasonable to me.

    but as an agnostic relativist, I don’t believe in absolutes. “anything could happen”. I believe it is appropriate to use qualifying language such as “I believe” when talking about a subject like the afterlife to which nothing can be known from experience. (unless you have an experience like that dude in the chick tract who comes back from hell)

  7. “I believe it is appropriate to use qualifying language such as “I believe” when talking about a subject like the afterlife to which nothing can be known from experience”

    Yes, but people dont do that. They state things as facts. “THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE” instead of “I BELIEVE THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE, BUT I DONT REALLY KNOW”

    (unless you have an experience like that dude in the chick tract who comes back from hell)

    haha. I love chick tracts now. Hooked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s