10 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer
My post in response to the God Is Imaginary people has generated a lot of interest. One of the incoming links to that post is from atheist.net in which literally hundreds of responses were generated from a link to my post – which is supposedly an unbiased look at the workings of the Christian brain. I’m not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed since I believe I firmly stated in the forematter of the post that I am neither a Christian nor an atheist – I am at present a neutral party. I am attempting to give equal treatment to both arguments.
I will now present you 10 questions that I have asked myself, through the lens of atheism, and have been unable to come up with sufficient explanations. I welcome any intelligent atheist to comment in response to all of some of these questions and offer your answer to them as an atheist. I will also present these questions with my own commentary (I do not present these as answers since, as I said, I am unable to sufficiently answer these).
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I have written about this one already, but it’s an important one, since Biblical morality, and the assertion that a God is responsbile for defining and dictating actions as moral by many Christians is a point of contention and is frequently used in arguments on the matter. This issue is compounded by the fact that the morality as defined by the Old Testament is different than the morality defined by the New Testament which is different than the morality exercised by most people today (in general, people today believe the Bible is immoral, including many Christians on many points such as slavery, the killing of homosexuals, and so forth).
As an atheist, if you are to be consistent, then as I see it, two scenarios follow depending on what you believe. If you are a moral relativist (you do not judge other cultures, such as the Iranians, because their moral code is different than your own), then you must necessarily also not use the morality argument as a reason to be an atheist – simply because the morality of Scripture was practiced by a now extinct culture does not mean it alone can be judged. If you believe in universal morality, then the answer to another question becomes central to your belief system: who or what determines which actions are moral and which are not? This is my dilemma. I do believe in absolute morals, but I cannot reconcile the fact that I do not trust any human being, no matter how smart they are, including myself, to prescribe to me what is moral and what is not. Sure, I go by my gut, and I consider myself a pretty moral person, but I am also not so arrogant to believe that I uniquely know what is moral and what is not especially since I will readily acknowledge that the older I get the more moral I become – actions I would have considered moral 10 years ago I consider immoral today, so how am I sure that I will not also think that actions I take today as moral will not be immoral to me 10 years from now?
I have seen a few atheist writings about this topic that attempt to create some logical formula for judging an action, such as this one from ebonmusing: “Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.“
I am not convinced. Although his essay is thorough and attempts to explain how and why morality can be universal and where it comes from, I don’t buy most of it, nor do I even think his rule is valid. I have several simple examples which defeat it, and I’ll post them in a comment if you can’t come up with them on your own (they are trivial).
This example shouldn’t distract you from the fact that question above still isn’t sufficiently answered. Think on it. I think you’ll be hard pressed.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person. I will demonstrate this fact by asking you, the atheist, the following questions.
These are all questions that would typically appear on a 100 level biological anthropology couse taught in universities around the world. They relate to your favorite topic: evolution. I will post the answers (and the reasons why you should believe me) at the bottom of the post:
- Name the major extinct hominid species from which human beings are presently believed to have evolved.
- How long ago did the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) come into existence?
- How long ago did early hominids leave Africa?
- How long ago did hominids split from the other primates?
- Which biological feature is believed to be the most important in the evolution of man, and why?
- Name one phyisical trait or behavior that is unique to the genus Homo.
- Who were the neanderthals? Where did they live, when did they live, and why are they gone?
- A major event occurred approximately 70,000 years ago very relevant to the evolution of humanity. What was the event, and why is it significant?
If you can’t answer these questions, I think my point is illustrated. And please don’t dwell on the fact that even if you don’t know the answers, the answers exist. Because if you could answer these questions you would know enough to know how little we actually know about these topics.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
This question is related to #2 – most atheists will parrot something about cranial evolution (without knowing the slightest bit about the topic) – but this is in fact one of the most baffling questions in anthropology today and it remains unsolved.
Approximately 50,000 years ago (the numbers vary), we suddenly see an explosion in things like archaic flutes, abstract cave drawings (not just represntations of observations like antelope and men with spears), venus figurines, evidence of ritual burials, etc. Before this date: nothing.
Why? Survival? I don’t think so. Our hominid cousins, the Neanderthals, who lived at the same time, in the same place, and for much longer, didn’t need any of that to survive. The hominids before either of us, H. Erectus, lasted even longer without any of those things. Greater mating potential? Maybe, but you’re stretching, and you know it. And you have what? No proof. So, I ask you, where does it come from?
You’ll find that in order to explain this you have to rely on the same kind of faith in evolution and natural selection that Christians use in defending their faith. Same basic human behavior, different parameters.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
I ask because this is a documented phenomenon. I am highly skeptical of these “mediums” myself. However, my two parents and two family friends (one of whom was the mother of Meghan Kanka of Meghan’s Law) went to see such a medium by the name of George Anderson. This man was able to pinpoint all of the things I described in my hyoptheticals for both Mrs. Kanka, our other guest, and my parents – up to and including the supposition that my deceased grandmother has forgiven my mother for not holding her hand while she was dying, a fact which has kept my mother away from her mother’s grave for two decades.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – you don’t believe it. Neither did I, until I heard the tapes. Now, I can’t explain any of this, and neither can you, unless you start making enormous stretches – for example, that he had some preordained knowledge of the guests, or that he said things that were too vague and could apply to anyone, etc. I’ve heard it all. I am statistically intellectually smarter than 95% of the population. I am not easy to convince about anything, but I am convinced that it was real. I can give you more examples of facts that he couldn’t have possibly known even if he had a private investigator tracking my parents for 40 years prior to their meeting.
So, I ask, what enormous stretch are you going to make to prove that this is nonsense? Is he reading peoples’ minds? How known is that to science? Any explanation you could make is as much or more absurd as any claim a Christian makes about how Jesus rose from the dead.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
This belief is fundamental to the atheist position. You must answer yes to this question or you have a very hard time denying most, if not all, religious beliefs. However, you should also see how absurd this statement is. The fact that it is always impossible to prove that something does not exist does not change the fact that it cannot be known that something doesn’t exist. So mustn’t you be agnostic? I’ve heard responses to this one too, but they have so far been illegitimate and unsatisfying.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
This question stumped Richard Dawkins, so maybe you have a better answer.
I imagine it’s something along the lines of, “I’m free from a silly delusion!” which I would reduce to, “I used my enormous intellectual powers of intelligence to conclude that I am right!” I also believe that what follows is a comfortable level of superiority over all of those misguided, stupid Christians who are obviously not nearly as smart as you are. If that helps you sleep at night, I guess. But in what I’ve seen, at least of the vocal atheists floating about the internet, this is almost unilaterally the case. Just watch any one of the atheists on YouTube. They give off such a condescending vibe it makes your head spin. Of course, to admit that this is true for you is pretty impossible especially since you’ve probably gone over this in your head so many times that you truthfully believe that you are merely right, not merely arrogant. And maybe you aren’t arrogant, but if you aren’t, you should have a good answer to this question.
I don’t. And while I admit that Christianity has been the cause of great suffering for many people over the years, I also believe that it has been the cause of great happiness for many people over the years. Does the good outweigh the bad? I am inclined to think yes. Personally, I’d rather take the good with the bad than take nothing at all, which is the atheist position as I see it.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
This one has been a real problem for me when I listen to the majority of atheist arguments. They claim that they are the logical ones, and that absence of logic results in faith, but I watch them constantly do exactly what I’ve described in the question. How do you know any premise is true? Most people gloss over this fact by correctly observing the fact that no one really ever knows anything since this question can be applied to anything, up to and including your own very existence. But how does this fact change anything? You still don’t know whether any of your logical premises are true.
As I’ve said before, logical debates work because both opposing parties agree on premises as being true before they start. Otherwise, you end up in this trouble. The example is this: the abortion debate focuses on whether a fetus is alive or dead because both sides agree that killing humans is bad. In order to make abortion not bad you have to prove that a fetus is not a human life.
Since there are few, or no, premises that can said to be definitively true on this topic, how on earth can you use logic to work out anything?
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
I have heard very few atheists intelligently debate this issue without bringing up the Bible. Let’s assume that it is totally allegorical and Christians didn’t literally believe in Jesus and believed only that the Bible books were stories told by God to illustrate his word. Would this change how you viewed the belief in God? If not, why not?
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
I find that many atheists tend to b extremely dogmatic. They are intent on converting everyone they meet. Many atheists don’t care, but if you do, why do you feel so strongly about it? How is your preaching different than any religious preacher attempting to convert you?
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
I saved the best for last. I want you to think long and hard about this. We have as little or less evidence that E.T. landed in Roswell than any evidence we have for the truth in any part of the Bible and yet almost every single atheist I meet believes that we are not alone in the universe despite there being no evidence whatsoever. They hand-wave me to death with stories like, “even if only one in a trillion stars had planets and only one in a trillion planets had life and only one in a trillion planets with life hosted intelligent life there would still be eleventy-gazillion earths in the universe”, or they make up fairy tales about Area 51.
If you are an atheist, I am going to require that you also do not believe in E.T. And if you acknowledge that E.T. has not been observed but is likely to exist, I demand that you also acknowledge that God has not been observed but is likely to exist.
Comments if you like.
As promised, here are the answers to the questions I asked about evolution:
1. Name the major extinct hominid species from which human beings are presently believed to have evolved.
The short list is: Australopithecines -> H. Habilis -> H. Erectus -> H. Sapiens -> H. Sapiens Sapiens. H.Sapiens is sometimes referred to as archaic humans.
2. How long ago did the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) come into existence?
The numbers vary, and the exact cutoff between H. Sapiens Sapiens is disputed (some don’t even use the term). But anatomically moderns are known as old as about 150,000 years ago, but it didn’t happen over night. The split from H. Erectus started between half a million and about 350,000 years ago.
3. How long ago did early hominids leave Africa?
There is evidence of H.Erectus (and some claim H.Habilis) in Europe and Asia starting around 1.5 million years ago. Most scientists today believe that H.Erectus evoled solely in Africa and migrated, but some still believe that H.Habilis migrated, evolving uniquely into the same species, H.Erectus (you see the problem with this).
4. How long ago did hominids split from the other primates?
The number changes every time a new skeleton is dug up. Originally, when the australopithecines were first identified, it was believed to be about 5 or 6 million years ago. DNA evidence suggests around 12 million years ago. Others say 8. It probably isn’t longer than 15, but it could be as short as 8.
5. Which biological feature is believed to be the most important in the evolution of man, and why?
Bipedalism. The brain came long, long after this. Australopithecines were little more than chimpanzees who walked on two feet, but from them, humans are believed to have evolved. The reason for this, aside from the obvious archaeological evidence, is that once the hands are freed from walking, they can be used to make tools. This triggered growths in the brain since better tools means better survival.
6. Name one phyisical trait or behavior that is unique to the genus Homo.
Good luck. You might try bipedalism. Nope – the ostrich. Tool use. Nope – sea otters. Transmission of ideas between generations. Nope – this has been observed in macaques (relatives of babboons). Culture. Nope - this has been observed (in a primitive form) by chimpanzees, who have unique behaviors and tool uses depdending on where in Africa they live. Belief in God – you’re on to something!
7. Who were the neanderthals? Where did they live, when did they live, and why are they gone?
Neanderthals were early relatives of humans (we did not evolve from them!) who lived in Europe, the middle east, and parts of Asia about 350,000 to 30,000 years ago. They were not considered as intelligent as we are. They did not develop the same kinds of tools (we humans are believed to have at least atlatls, but probably bows and arrows, as early as about 50,000 years ago). They did not display definitive ritualistic behavior, and they are generally not believed to have buried their dead. The most likely scenario for their disappearance is that we, the humans, killed them over hunting territory disputes until we drove them to extinction.
8. A major event occurred approximately 70,000 years ago very relevant to the evolution of humanity. What was the event, and why is it significant?
A major volcano erupted in the Indian Ocean and deposited a layer of soot many inches thick across nearly the entire bottom of the ocean (as well as on land). DNA sampling of modern humans from around the globe has suggested that, around the same time, a group of about 3,000 humans living in Ethiopia populated the entire planet. Meaning, all other hominids, and all other human beings, were killed in that event or were replaced by descendants of this one, small group. Garden of Eden, anyone?
Now, who am I to be telling you this, anyway? I was a teaching assistant for ANTH220, Intro to Biological Anthropology, for 5 semesters during college. I ran the 2 hour weekly lab, graded almost all of the course work, and wrote exam questions. I know a lot more about evolution, specifically human evolution, than the armchair atheist. Perhaps it is because of this that I know we have more questions – far, far more questions – than we have answers.
[...] Ten Questions Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer [...]
Good questions!
Here is what I can muster:
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
A: Relativist! Just like everyone else on the planet! Imagine if a crazy ax murderer is going after your friend, ready to kill him, but you have a gun in your hand. You are not gonna stop and think about the 6th commandment are you? Are you? ( thou shalt not kill, just so you don’t have to google it) You have just been declared guilty of moral relativism! I wonder if god would send you to hell for that?
Oh and I would like to ask I don’t want to hear about how religious people are more “moral” when their god slaughters all the first born male children of egypt. Innocent, living children. How is THAT moral?
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Based on science of course! Science has the ability to self correct. IE evolution could be dis-proven tomorrow if a new piece of evidence arises. So you must always check your sources, never trust people just because they say things that make you feel good, especially if the things they say make you feel good. ( IE your gonna live forever, god loves you, etc, etc)
And you have questions within questions! fun times:
Name the major extinct hominid species from which human beings are presently believed to have evolved.
A: Homo Erectus!
How long ago did the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) come into existence?
A : If I remember correctly 120K years ago!
How long ago did early hominids leave Africa?
A: Erectus I think it was the first to leave ,about 1M years ago!
How long ago did hominids split from the other primates?
A: 7 million years, if i am not mistaken.
Which biological feature is believed to be the most important in the evolution of man, and why?
A: Shooting from the hip on this one: Ability to reason. Why? because our frail bodies are no match for lions, hippos and crocs without the ability to create tools, conquer and use fire we would not survive as a species.
Name one phyisical trait or behavior that is unique to the genus Homo.
A: the ability to walk up right
Who were the neanderthals? Where did they live, when did they live, and why are they gone?
A: A cousin species of humans, not a direct ancestor. They evolved independently in Europe separated from other homonids. I think they lived from 300K to about 40K years ago.
A major event occurred approximately 70,000 years ago very relevant to the evolution of humanity. What was the event, and why is it significant?
A: No clue!
3.Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
The human brain. All our mental capacity for reason and creativity come from it.
Don’t believe me? Go read the case of Phineas Gauge. You will understand how damage to the brain’s structure affects the mind.
You go on a rant about how creativity is not needed for survival, perhaps. But then creativity flourished 50K years ago ( your words) . Perhaps a mutation enabled this or perhaps human population was stable enough that people could develop this creativity.
The answer is I don’t know, but I do know that it was not the invisible man in the sky, because the invisible man in the sky is not an explanation.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
I would think they are fraudsters and dismiss them.
As for your story about your parents, they probably were tricked by fraudsters. Also you claim you have these awesome tapes that prove it yet you could just post them on youtube or something, maybe you have. But I don’t believe you have those tapes. And even if you did, people don’t go anywhere but the grave when they die. That is it. Your mind does NOT survive your death. Again, Phineas Gauge, damaged brain, damaged mind. Destroyed brain, destroyed mind.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
Nope! But your god is not a deist god ( im assuming of course that you are a christian)
The bible says VERY SPECIFIC things about your god, things that are impossible. Like creating man from dirt , seems like you are informed on evolution, so I don’t think you believe in adam and eve and the garden of eden.
The bible also says that your god flooded the ENTIRE EARTH ( I wonder where the water receded to?). Of course there is zero evidence for a planetary flood.
Furthermore, your bible says that people can come back from the dead like it is no big deal. ( Lazarus of Bethany is revived by jesus, so is a little girl and so is jesus himself) These things are not possible, you know that, I know that and every educated person on this planet knows that.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
Nothing but the truth, just like in the Matrix, so it is not for everyone.
It has improved my life because I can now see reality from a clear perspective, i don’t have to jump through mental hoops to try and explain the unexplainable. Such as: if evolution is true, then there was probably no garden of eden ( i grew up catholic, so yeah, evolution is true) which means that there is no original sin or fall of man, so then Jesus coming to earth has no meaning. I had all these thoughts in my head, but, being an atheists clears them all and lets me see reality for what it is. It gives me peace of mind.
I don’t know if it will improve other’s lives. We will have to look at that on a case by case basis. But, as a society I do think we need less god and less religion, the happiest, healthiest, most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world have a large number of atheists ( organic growth, not forced)
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
A: I look at the premises. IE: you argue that god is real because of X. I take a look at X and it does not conclusively prove that god is real, so I go on being an atheist. It’s very easy to do, because all the “proofs” provided by theists have already been refuted soundly. You have to remember, I was a religious person when I was younger and I believed it , truly believed, that god was real. After I read all the arguments against it, I could not believe it anymore.
8.If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
No I would still be an atheist.
Other people’s beliefs do not affect my beliefs. Just like my atheism does not affect your belief in Christianity ( i think) .
9.Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It isn’t to me, although I can’t speak for every atheist. What is important is that religious loudmouths have their arguments ripped to shreds in front of everybody to see. Keep it to yourself and away from the government and small children. That is all I ask .
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
Weird and seems irrelevant but ok.
No I don’t think that ET has visited planet earth. Yes, there are trillions of planets , there has to be life on one of them, it would be statistically impossible for it not to be so. By the way I love how you jump to area 51, from trillions of planets talk about faulty logic. I thought your 95 percentile IQ would allow you to structure a coherent sentence, lol.
And this logic failure right here is priceless:
” f you are an atheist, I am going to require that you also do not believe in E.T. And if you acknowledge that E.T. has not been observed but is likely to exist, I demand that you also acknowledge that God has not been observed but is likely to exist.”
We haven’t observed ET because ET is probably in some little shit planet like ours in the middle of nowwhere and the distances between planets are ENORMOUS.
YOUR god is supposed to be EVERYWHERE, yet we dont find him in DNA or the big bang, or planetary formation or gravity or in the atom or in the parts that make up the atom, nowhere, nowhere to be found, the creator of the universe should have probably left an imprint on his creation. Yet , nothing there but randomness.
A question for you: How do you explain all this randomness if god created the universe and he has a plan for this creation?
Hope these answers help!
I can only hope that you find your way in this life and that you find truth.
Peace.
totally agree man im from sweden and we are 80 %atheist and i completely agree with you argument:P
your answers don’t really prove anything and are merely your opinions they are not sufficient enough to reject religion they are just reasons to disbelief just like religious people give reasons to believe. It doesn’t disprove the existence of God.
peace
“YOUR god is supposed to be EVERYWHERE, yet we dont find him in DNA or the big bang, or planetary formation or gravity or in the atom or in the parts that make up the atom, nowhere, nowhere to be found, the creator of the universe should have probably left an imprint on his creation. Yet , nothing there but randomness.
A question for you: How do you explain all this randomness if god created the universe and he has a plan for this creation?”
We find him in all these places. Do you really believe that all of that was created randomly? If so you have more faith than I. The odds of our universe being created on accident is much less than the odds of life existing on other planets! The laws of nature are so finely tuned that if we try to adjust just one constant by a percent or two, life becomes impossible. If we try to tune other laws to make up for this, it just creates even more problems. If you are referring to the drake equation for life on other planets, many of the variables used within it are guesstimates and can be swayed either way. It is not science.
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I believe in Absolute Morality. It is an inherent trait of the human species. Your upbringing, surroundings, peer pressure, and familial relationships will help to cause you to be Moral, or Immoral! If you put a child in a lab until he was 18, and gave him a nurturing parent(Figure) and home schooled him/her. I Guarantee that child would grow up to be a Loving, Caring, Moral Human Being.
Who or what determines which actions are moral and which are not?
I Do. I don’t want to be stabbed or shot, so I don’t stab or shoot anyone. I believe that everyone is a good person until proven otherwise. I help people in need when I can because I have feelings. What else do you need to hear?
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Is this really one of your arguments? Open any science book you like, and test anything you like in that book, and if you get it wrong then you messed up. Everything aside from pure theories is, has been, and always will be provable. Can you give me one example from the Bible that meets the same criteria?
These are all questions that would typically appear on a 100 level biological anthropology couse taught in universities around the world. They relate to your favorite topic: evolution. I will post the answers (and the reasons why you should believe me) at the bottom of the post:
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person. I will demonstrate this fact by asking you, the atheist, the following questions.
Name the major extinct hominid species from which human beings are presently believe to have evolved.
Homo Sapiens. Not to be confused with Homo Sapiens Sapiens!
How long ago did the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) come into existence?
These are easy questions that anyone can look up on the internet but I will try my best to answer from memory!
Humans as we know them originated approximately 50,000 years ago.
How long ago did early hominids leave Africa?
Approx 70,000 years ago
How long ago did hominids split from the other primates?
6-7 Million years ago. They are called Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Which biological feature is believed to be the most important in the evolution of man, and why?
Well that would be our brain. Easy Question. Before that would have been our thumbs.
Name one phyisical trait or behavior that is unique to the genus Homo.
Opposable Thumbs.Standing Upright, and Language.
Who were the neanderthals? Where did they live, when did they live, and why are they gone?
The neanderthals were an offshoot of the homo sapiens. They lived mostly in africa and the middle east. They are gone because the were strong, but slow and not very intelligent,
A major event occurred approximately 70,000 years ago very relevant to the evolution of humanity. What was the event, and why is it significant?
Early humans began to spread out from Africa to all parts of the world.
If you can’t answer these questions, I think my point is illustrated. And please don’t dwell on the fact that even if you don’t know the answers, the answers exist. Because if you could answer these questions you would know enough to know how little we actually know about these topics.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
From the Imagination, and Creativity of Humans.
Why? Survival? I don’t think so. Our hominid cousins, the Neanderthals, who lived at the same time, in the same place, and for much longer, didn’t need any of that to survive. The hominids before either of us, H. Erectus, lasted even longer without any of those things. Greater mating potential? Maybe, but you’re stretching, and you know it. And you have what? No proof. So, I ask you, where does it come from?
How do you know that they didnt have music, or Art, or worship the Moon, or Darkness? Were you there? Is there any evidence for or against any of it? Please stick to what you know as fact!
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
The only way I could explain it is because it would have to be a scam. And if you are suggesting that they can read my mind then read your own Bible.
A person can expect to be invaded by demonic spirits if he/she dabbles with psychic phenomena profanities such as fortune telling, sorcery, calling spirits, witchcraft or any kind of occult, he/she can expect to be invaded by demonic spirits. As his/her defenses are dropped by his/her meddling curiosity, occult spirits can and will enter in and establish themselves. These are the spirits which travel to the third and fourth generations through the parents by inheritance, because consorting with them breaks the first commandment by contacting another god. If this is so, a curse from God results. For more information, read from the books Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and Exodus 20:3-5. However the person continues on, the God-given defenses are forced down again and again. Increasingly the demons have free access and control. Before long they will make a slave-victim of him/her, driving him ever deeper into the mire of sin and slavery.
The Bible teaches that such acts are not acceptable to God and warns that such a relationship places a person under the influence of the Devil.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
Of course not, but it remains the absence of Truth!
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
The Atheist position helps people to do better things with their Sundays, and Not give their money to a church. (Why does a church need money?) And also When they achieve something great like winning a track meet race at school, or quit smoking, or drinking heavily. Then they can thank “Themselves” instead of thanking the Easter bunny…..oh I’m sorry I meant God.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
I used to be a Christian, and I was molested as a child. I prayed, and prayed for it to stop, but it never did. Then My father left my family. I prayed for him to come back. He eventually did 9 years later as an alcoholic who beat my mom. My TRUE PREMISE as far as I am concerned is that Prayer does not work. And If there IS a God then why is all of the news channels filled with horrific acts? You can say that those stories sell newspapers, and bring in ratings but where are the good acts? I actually feel bad for you.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
Why just Christians? Why not Catholics, or Mormons, or Evangelicals? ETC
I would argue if the works of Harry Potter, or The Lord of The Rings were fact, just because they were written in a book.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
I never and would never ask, or try to coerce someone to be an atheist. I believe that everyone can have their own beliefs.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
I only believe in what can be proven. Or what I have seen with my own eyes, and even then I would be wary!
You are blinded by religion and you cannot fully live life! But I thank you for these questions and I wish you and your family a long and healthy life.
However if there IS a god then I want him to stay FAR away from me, and if Jesus came back I would help to kill him again!
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I’m a relativist. Look so where I come from stoning people and even the death sentence by something humane like lethal injection is wrong whereas in some states in America it isn’t and in biblical times stoning was quite a big thing. People grow up in different circumstances so what I may be doing could be morally corrupt for them and vice versa. I disagree that because I’m a relativist means that I can’t judge because we judge things by our own standards, everyone has prejudices, its human so by being an atheist am I not human?
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
If you asked whether I truthfully, unequivocally believed in science I would say no. Science is mostly theories minus basic things like the existence of gravity and the fact 1+1=2 (there was a man who did a whole calculation to work that out). Evolution, Climate change does occur and has for millions of years, the Earth is on a constant sin graph fluctuation and who said we can predict the future? Theories alter and we don’t know when the true answer will appear or if it ever will but aren’t Theologians also searching for an answer or saying they found it in ‘God’? So I will say mine is based on logic based on a humanistic urge to understand.
(I was going to go back to these but it’s 2am and I’m worried my parents will come up any moment and growl me…plus I’m not even an adult yet.)
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
When I was fourteen, okay maybe younger, I was at the stage where I began questioning ‘God’ after being brought up in a very Christian family where I’ve been told not believing in Jesus leads to hell. At that point I realised that again people need an excuse for something they don’t understand or know how it happened so wouldn’t it be easy to say, ‘God’ when asked how the earth was made or why the sun sets and rises. Evolution does explain for language or at least why different areas have different languages and that is because of the ‘Bottleneck affect’ which can also explain different skin, eye, and hair colour. We all have to communicate somehow. Music and art, I suppose times may have been getting easier and so slowly things started to happen, I wasn’t there and neither were you so I see you took the easy answer like I was stating before and said, ‘God.’
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
If that ACTUALLY happens then I could give you my answer but it hasn’t so I can’t. Can’t exactly get me to try and explain something I don’t believe in especially psychics, my mum was supposedly meant to have three children and has only had two. You can believe what you want but I think your parents psychic was a fraud.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
No but then all the things in the bible so did truly happen and there’s proof for every word because why would ‘God’ need to make stories up? I as a woman don’t think I’m made out of a man’s rib. Then all the supposed proof that is of ‘Gods’ existence could simply be no proof at all since as stated in a previous answer it sometimes is just so easy to say ‘God.’
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
So you only believe in ‘God’ because you gain something from it? For me I get nothing, because if I go by what I think I am merely made of stardust and am really only a grain of sand in the chasm of things. Religion causes man to be far too egotistical, believing that ‘God’ created everything for our own use. So Atheism has done for me as much as religion has and for others… well can you honestly say that everyone who converts gains something. They may gain a narrow view of others beliefs, alienate others for not believing in the same things (I’ve seen this happen, I still go to a Catholic school (educational purposes)). I think nothing is better than a possible loss.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
I didn’t start at that conclusion but I ended up at it. We call question don’t we? I was talking to a un-Denomitional Christian today while I waited for my parents and she came to talk to me ‘speared the good news’ and because I really couldn’t care if others believe in something I don’t (unless it’s completely morally bankrupt stated earlier) I see no reason as to why I shouldn’t be nice and listen to them. She too told me she questioned. My original conclusion was nothing (since I was a baby) then the childish faith in ‘God’ then being an agnostic then nothingness again.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
No because Christianity isn’t the only religion and none have swayed me (though sometimes I do wish Norse God’s were real) so why would that change my view. Anyway in my agnostic, questioning stage I thought it was just a story written by man for moral codes and how to treat people, technically still is since in all(?) countries law is based on their main religion.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
I really don’t care, I just dislike the wilfully ignorant that when they find out I’m atheist have to argue with me and tell me why I’m wrong then completely dismiss anything I have to say and conclude they won for the share fact I’m wrong. I have nothing against religion, just organised religion and yet I’d do nothing about that either. I have a firm Christian friend and I respect what she believes, have even gone to her church and will go to her baptism.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
I don’t believe in all of those fairy tales but statistically there’s a possibility. Look if we haven’t met aliens then they haven’t met us and so does that mean that we don’t exist?
I’ve enjoyed this, I like how you have set views on what Atheists should believe or should not believe, I thought that that at the beginning you’d take the agnostic approach to things but obviously not because the human minds are all exactly the same and none of us think differently. You seem more like a science believing Christian but that’s just a thought of mine. Also why can’t it be ‘Gods’ (multiple) and not just one ‘God’ that I don’t believe in? Have you ever considered trying to believe in multiple ‘Gods’?
tuche, my friend. I don’t think that atheists are in fact caring so much about not caring but are overly annoyed with the hypocracy that takes place in the world. They are more than likely truth seekers and where they bring up valid points, they still fail to bring up legit evidence backing the point just like the Christians. Nobody knows the truth. We only can go by what we know. I was very impressed with your knowledge of science when arguing your point. However, I can’t say that it was an awakening experience. I’m not saying that God isn’t real but I would say that you can’t condense an omnipitent being down to a man figure with human egos and traits. Some feminist argue the sex of God. I say if God has a penis or a vagina it’s dissappointing. God isn’t human. When scripture tells me that God loves me, well, in order for the transaction of love to take place you must have the loved and the beloved. Love is a human emotion characterized from reproductive instincts.
Secular love is however an insane subject. It is not like the primary love that is unconditional but secular love comes with ultimatems and regulations. So once again I ask, how is the doctrine correct. I do believe that there is a God but I believe that we got it all wrong. Atheist however are just annoyed at hypocracy and the acts thereof.
1. False dichotomy – I do not believe in absolute morality, and I am not a moral relativist. Your question is thus
rendered senseless.
I have posted several videos on this topic. Morality can be viewed from two angles, the way I see it: As a set of
behaviours, and as the philosophical reasoning (if any) behind this set of behaviours.
And morality is constantly evolving. There is no such thing, even among theists, as “absolute morality”. Show me one
christian who thinks it’s not just okay, but a good thing to do, to stone disobedient children. Just one.
2. My trust in science, in so far as I trust science, is based on the fact that the scientific method yields
consistent results and fits the evidence as I see it.
3. As a computer programmer, the short term I would use is “emergent behaviour”. Our brains evolved their current
size and structure (which obviously is an evolutionary advantage in whichever way, as evidence of which I would
submit the fact that we have outcompeted all other hominids including the physically more well-endowed (in the brain
department) Neanderthals). I would suggest that language evolved from a basic need of communication (and rudimentary
language is present even in the other great apes, by the way), and that art, music, and religion are behavioural
by-products of our evolution. None of them are necessary as such, but only one of them is inherently harmful.
4. If, hypothetically, this were to happen, I would set it aside as unexplained. I am not afraid to say that I don’t
know something.
So far, I have had no evidence of such an occurence, and your anecdote is not evidence unless you can document the
circumstances. So until you present such evidence, from my point of view, it didn’t happen.
Also note that the existence of “something unexplained” like this in no way indicates an omnipotent creator of
whatever kind.
5. Absence of evidence is not, in itself, evidence of absence. However, absence of expected evidence for a given
proposition is.
For instance, prayer to any of the gods on Earth has been shown not to work, therefore, any of these gods who are
claimed to answer prayers, do not exist.
6. Atheism “offers” nothing. Why should it? And why would this affect whether or not it’s true or false?
7. Premise: Reality is real (ie. observational evidence IS in fact evidence). From this premise we know that all the
claims of earthly intervention of supernatural beings are false, because they have never been measured under the
circumstances where they are claimed by each religion to be found. We therefore conclude that these religions have
no knowledge other than that available to the rest of us, and their fantastic claims of the existence of
supernatural beings are therefore about as believable as claims of the existence of Santa Claus or the Celestial
Teapot.
8. If the bible was believed by all christians to be entirely allegorical, it would change nothing. There would
still be no evidence for god(s), and the bible would still be nothing more than a bronze age fantasy novel.
9. To the extent that this is important to me, it is so because atheism follows naturally from skepticism, and it is
important to me that everyone is a skeptic. Simply because the lack of skepticism, ie. blind faith, leads to
atrocities in every context where it exists. Atheism in itself does nothing, it’s simply the absence of belief in
deities. Skepticism is vital, however.
10. I find it highly likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind exists. Based on sheer probability.
I find it highly unlikely that intelligent extraterrestrial life should cross the interstellar gap and visit us at
any point, particularly at a point where we would be sufficiently evolved, physically and culturally, to know what
was going on if it happened.
There is no correlation between the statistical probability of believing that life could exist elsewhere (after all,
we know it exists here), and the statistical probability of a supernatural, sentient entity that created the
universe (there is no evidence here or anywhere else that such an entity exists). And you are not in a position to
REQUIRE anything about what I consider likely or unlikely based on a false presupposition that something we know
exists in one place and can imagine in another is equally as probable as something we have no evidence exists
anywhere.
By all means, if you can present evidence that a supernatural entity exists, measurable, testable evidence, then I
shall happily believe in this supernatural entity. If you can then present evidence that this entity somehow created
all this, then I shall happily believe that that’s the case. Until such a time, however, it’s no more believable
than the idea that an invisible pink unicorn roams the earth.
And frankly, you presuppose a lot of things in your questions that would lead me to call you an agnostic christian
theist, so I can understand why others would name your perspective “a christian perspective”. It is. It’s just
slightly more well-reasoned and slightly less superstitious than that of the fundies.
But you are still presupposing a supernatural agent as the default position for anything we do not know. It’s not.
The default position is “we don’t know”. That’s it.
How can mutations(recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties.
With what did the first cell capabel of sexual reproduction
How,when where did life come from non-living matter
How come scientist can’t duplicate the big bang in fact they can’t do anything without a lab and I am positive that scientist or labs existed when the life began.
A cell needs oxygen and it would have died without a body so how could a cell live in the dirt.
Not one scientist has changed a monkey into a human
How come monkeys and humans can’t reproduce togather.
If atheist say that we are animals then why does it matter if we kill eachother. Animals kill eachother all of the time
Why do we plan to have babies and animals don’t they have them regaurdless of the conditions.
Why do we abort babies when animals don’t abort there babies.
Name one animal that can have a logical debate and build planes,computer,cars
drug-resistant bacteria are an example of an improved variety. How does it happen? I don’t know. What’s your point?
Did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction what?
It didn’t.
How would scientists recreate the Big Bang without ending the world?
Cells do NOT die without bodies. The vast majority of organisms are single-celled.
Why would a scientist change a monkey into a human?
Humans and monkeys are of different genera.
Very few SOCIAL animals kill each other, though.
Because we are a unique species.
Ditto.
Humans.
This post merely shows a fundamental idiocy and disingenuousness, and a very small intellect.
And THIS post merely shows that you own a thesaurus.
This post seems to be an argument against a specific type of atheist, one who seeks to disprove God through logic and is bent on “converting” all those who he meets, with atheism his sole motivating reason for continued existence. This does not represent atheism any more accurately than Josef Stalin does, or than an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist represents his religion or religion in general. Just as there are plenty of Christians, say, who don’t read the Bible regularly or go to church each week, there are plenty of atheists who don’t believe the world needs to be rid of religion and attempt to carry this plan out in all their social interactions. Judging by your arguments, I guess you’ve only met this type of atheist and therefore assume all atheists are like this?
Not all atheists are Richard Dawkins. Your questions assumed this was the case and came across as condescending and betray a fundamental understanding of atheism, despite your claim that you are “statistically intellectually smarter than 95% of the population.” (An irrelevant claim when no definition of the subjective quality of intelligence is given.) In this way, they are much like the questions for Christians that you seek to rebut.
That said, here are my short and very personal answers to these questions. I speak for myself, not all atheists.
1. I am a moral relativist. There is no absolute morality. Personally, I think killing is wrong, and I like to think I would never kill for any reason, but I also think the Allies’ role in stopping Hitler through warfare was a noble one. I could not have ordered it because of the great loss of life it caused by definition, but it happened and resulted in stopping great atrocities. So in no way do I use an argument of moral superiority to justify my atheism.
2. I trust science to give correct answers to my questions even though I know very little facts in specific fields of science. I could only answer one (#5) of your questions. Also, I don’t know how airplanes work, or anything about storms beyond what I can see outside my window right now. However, if I were to look up scientific explanations of these things, I would trust them unless something I observed directly contradicted these explanations. Why? Because I believe in the core ideas of scientific method – we cannot presume to know anything for certain, but by testing and proving or disproving theories we can hope to better understand the world around us. This seems to me a more legitimate argument than the religious argument that religious texts represent absolute truth.
3. I don’t know where language, art, and music come from, except that it makes sense that language emerged as a way to cooperate between people as they evolved. I don’t feel that I need to know, either – I can enjoy music without thinking about the origins of the human brain.
4. This is anecdotal evidence with no support. If I had this experience, after doing the investigations you did, I would dismiss the incident as unexplained and interesting. As I said in question 2, humble science does not see itself as obliged to give a definite explanation for everything that may happen. My main problem with religion is that it does.
5. This belief is not fundamental to the atheist position. I don’t believe in God. Proof has never been shown to me, and this supports my belief, but I don’t believe that God has been proven not to exist through scientific inquiry. I just don’t believe in Him. (Also, see the above poster “Cap’”‘s answer to this question for an effective proof that I would like to see a rebuttal to.)
6. I am personally happier as an atheist than I would be as religious, because I don’t have the pain of observing people who don’t share my beliefs and knowing that they are doomed to hell or other punishment, and I don’t feel the need to annoy people by sharing my beliefs. Everyone has their own reason for their beliefs – this is true of religious people as well. Religious people too might have their lives improved, or detracted from, by religion – it’s a personal thing.
7. I don’t use logical debates to prove God doesn’t exist. I just don’t believe in God.
8. I think belief in God is a totally legitimate way of living, and can result in good and bad decisions alike. I just don’t believe in God.
9. Do you really think that every atheist desires to spread their beliefs to everyone on the planet with a condescending air of superiority? I don’t say the same about religious people! I just don’t believe in God!
10. This argument is completely illogical, and reveals yet again your offensive stereotype of atheists as deranged conspiracy theory freaks with an air of superiority and a missionary complex. I do not believe in aliens. If aliens invade the earth, sure, then I will know they exist. If the universe is proved to be infinite, sure, aliens must exist. I have chosen to believe that God doesn’t exist. If God invades the earth, sure, I’ve been proven wrong. If God is defined as a vague concept of “the Universe, as it is”, then sure, I have to believe in God. Belief in aliens wouldn’t affect my life at all, probably. But I refuse to believe in a sentient and all-powerful being who controls my life – believing in the absence of God is the belief that makes the most sense to me and is the most beneficial to my lifestyle.
These were just my answers to your questions, and not condescending arguments against the faith-based position. Hopefully they have been opened up your idea of what an atheist is? Being an atheist and having atheist friends as well as religious ones, I have to say that generalizations about personality based on beliefs never work! Hopefully you will meet an atheist who will change your mind about your stereotypes – maybe you already know one! Until that day, your intellectual superiority about your position is no different from that of the internet atheists you mock, and has little respect from me.
ALPlurabelle-
#2: My point here is to illustrate that most atheists have faith in science that is at least as blind as the faith in God by the religious, but when “blind faith” is ascribed to the religious they are mocked for it while when applied to atheists they fall back on an explanation like the one you gave.
As a scientist myself, I am very aware that the more we learn, the more we see how little we know. When you actually understand scientific explanations for various phenomenons like thunderstorms, you find that every answer just leads to hundreds or more questions. It is as endless and infinite as God is described to be.
#4: “As I said in question 2, humble science does not see itself as obliged to give a definite explanation for everything that may happen. My main problem with religion is that it does.”
But the nice part about religion is that the answer is always the same. When something like my scenario occurs, it is not unexplainable. If you think of science like a path to discovery, you refuse to accept that the end of every path is God, so instead when science fails to lead you anywhere, you just dismiss, ignore it, chalk it up as “interesting” and promptly stop exploring the experience because science is useless. That sounds like a terrific way of arriving at understanding.
#5 – So again, you have no valid reason for your belief but you are still an atheist despite neither evidence for nor against your position. But you also believe in the scientific method? Do you listen to yourself? Do you see how your worldivew is contradictory? You cannot be an atheist. You must be an agnostic. They are different things. You may not be guilty of accusing believers of believing without any evidence, but the vast majority of other atheists are and that’s why I asked this question.
#9 – Yes, I do, and you have provided evidence for my argument by responding to this post. If you didn’t want people to agree with you, you wouldn’t spend the time justifying your beliefs on the internet. You can deny that claim, but then you have to ask yourself why you were interested in both reading and responding to this post.
#10 – No, this argument is completely logical. Atheists refuse to believe in God because they have no physical proof of his existence. Yet how can an atheist remain consistent in the method by which they arrive at conclusions about big ideas like God and aliens if they use one criteria to dismiss God and then completely contradict it to accept the existence of aliens? Neither has any proof, and if you don’t believe in one you must not believe in another.
I asked this specific question to illustrate this point, because many atheists do in fact believe in aliens. I am trying to illustrate the atheist’s clearly contradictory belief system. They can’t have it both ways. Of course, despite the widely held atheist belief in their own intellects, this is way over their head.
And lastly, please don’t bore me with the stereotypes lecture. Everyone bases their entire lives on generalizations. Even the atheists who aren’t openly hostile still have the same personality traits that all other atheists have or they wouldn’t be the kind of vocal atheist who responds to posts like this one or talk about their non-belief publicly. Since those are the only ones that anyone ever has exposure to by virtue of the fact that the others keep their mouths shut, I don’t think any of my generalizations are innacurate or irresponsible despite your assurance that you and your atheist friends are somehow different. Nothing in your comment has suggested that my generalization is so far inaccurate. But then again, you’re a moral relativist, so anything goes.
#4-There is nothing inherently good about always having the same answer. Science does ot always have an answer, and it does not claim to. SoÉ
#5-There is nothing that prevents someone from being an agnostic atheist. You can believe, but not claim to know.
#9-So, if I say theists must answer a question, and a theist answers it, then that means they feel everyone has to be a theistÉ Listen to your own arguments.
#10-But we know that life exists, whereas we donèt know if divine entities exist.
Cap’ –
#1 – Not a false dichotomy at all. Your answer indicates that you do not believe in absolute morality, therefore you believe in relative morality (relative morality is a fancy way of saying that people or groups define their own morality). What’s false about that dichotomy?
I think you would agree that we could find someone who calls themselves a christian who thinks it’s a good idea to stone disobedient children. They would describe it as a moral.
However, since I do not believe that morality is a mutable, intellectual pursuit, I would call bullshit and tell them they aren’t moral.
I understand a small set of actions or behaviors to be universally and absolutely moral or immoral, and the set for which there is no grey area has grown for me over time as I get older. Stoning disobedient children qualifies as absolutely immoral.
But then again, this is really just a thought question for the answerer. The nature of morality is something human beings have struggled with since the dawn of time and I don’t think we’re individually or collectively any closer to coming up with any real answers than we were 2000 years ago. I picked this question because the way someone answers it is a very solid predictor of how he’ll answer most of the other questions, and in fact whether or not he’s prone to be an atheist or not.
#2 – Except that most of the evidence you don’t actually see, you just hear about it and accept it. You haven’t personally witnessed any miracles but you also haven’t personally witnessed particle collisions in a hadron collider but you believe in one and not the other. Why? That’s the point of this question.
#3 – The fact that our species of hominid has outcompeted the other can’t be shown to be either a cause or an effect of any of the traits I’ve described. It is also not necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Although we could probably exterminate any other life form if we really put our minds to it, many would argue that various microorganisms, ocean life, and insect species are evolutionarily superior to us, especially in view of the fact that our species has not stood a test of hundreds of millions of years or any mass extinctions.
Symbolic langugage at the level that I am referencing in the post is posessed by no other species including great apes and prior to the mysterious evolutionary event that seems to have occured somewhere after 100,000ya our language faculties were only barely, if at all better than other primates.
#4 – I’ve described the situation more thoroughly than you’ve been explained many scientific tenets you would publicly defend. Observation is reality, right?
#5 – Prayer has not been shown not to work. In order for you to show that prayer does not work a precondition for the experimental environment would be to know that arbitrary prayers will be answered. All we can say about prayer is that not all prayers are answered. Again, we’re back to the fundamental question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Although you tried to agree because you know it’s logically sound, you obviously do not really believe it because you’re inventing something called “expected evidence” as if there’s a difference. A scientist expects nothing.
#6 – it doesn’t affect whether it’s true or false, it only affects why anyone should be interested in atheism or seek to further it.
#7 – All right, I’ll go with reality being real.
I claim that Seth MacFarlane’s failure to arrive at his flight from Boston to New York on time on 9/11 was divine intervention because he brings joy to millions.
Please construct an experiment for me that can show definitively that my claim is false. Please prove to me that claims of earthly intervention from supernatural beings are false.
By the way, the definition of supernatural being is a being that exists above nature, and therefore possibly outside of it.
This is a reiteration of the standard atheist rhetoric: I haven’t observed it so it must not be false. See #5. Does it make sense to you now why I specifically mentioned absence of evidence when asking this question?
#8 – but would you still mock it and call it worthless? This question was linked to #6. My point is that the bible and religious teachings have intrinsic worth that are independent of the “god is not real” distraction. It’s one thing to be an adeist, it’s another thing to be an atheist.
#9 – Blind faith leads to attrocities in every context that it exists? Are you serious? You have a very pessimistic view of religion that is unrealistic. Since you’re in love with science, I’ll refer to some studies that have shown conclusively that people who believe in God are more likely to survive in crisis situations, such as POW camps (which the study covered). Is survival an attrocity? Also, what about that Mother Theresa dame? I’m pretty sure that her blind faith didn’t produce any attrocities, did it?
You’re clearly very biased, and that’s unfortunate.
#10 – I claim that a being whose powers could only be described as supernatural by any scientist who observed it lives on the surface of Vega.
Is it a god? Is it an alien life form? Is it the Celestial Teapot? Who knows!
Can you prove it doesn’t exist? Can you prove it does? Is it highly likely? What’s the probability?
Your whole line of reasoning here is ridiculous. There is absolutely a correlation between using the “probability” argument to suggest that it is “highly likely” that something exists in a complete derth of evidence to support it but at the same time scoff at the notion that it is also “highly likely” that God exists in a complete derth of evidence to support it. The fact that life exists here has no necessary relationship whatsoever to the likelihood of it existing anywhere else.
The default position of an atheist is absolutely not “we don’t know”, it’s “we do know, and he doesn’t exist.” You just defined agnosticism.
Theists don’t just believe that a supernatural agent is the default position for anything we don’t know. It’s the default position for everything, including both what we know (through scientific observation) and what we do not yet know (because no one has observed it yet). Theists believe in an existence above and beyond nature (“supernatural”) and atheists do not. The details of what that supernatural world is like, I agree, are unknowable and therefore the specifics of religion are suspect. That’s why the “fundies” are such easy targets. Presuming to know what exists beyond anything we can ever observe is a tad on the naive side.
Of course, my point in defending Christianity specifically is because it combines belief in the supernatural with allegorical explanations that may or may not have actually happened (it really doesn’t matter) that when applied to one’s life are generally known to improve it. Part of why I believe the Christian church has, for so long, forced the belief that everything in the Bible literally happened is because the ones doing it understood how dimwitted the average person is and how completely hung up they get on what’s real and what isn’t.
The older I get, the more I see that truth and fiction are far, far less important than the consequences they produce. And that’s one of the reasons I spend time combating atheism because I believe it is counterproductive and dwells on details that are irrelevant.
lol…”By the way, the definition of supernatural being is a being that exists above nature, and therefore possibly outside of it.”
So by this definition one can never disprove the existence of God right? That is also true of Odin…fairies, and Durga to name a few. It is nice to know trolls, flying witches, Gnomes and demons are as real as God.
In society it is accepted that ppl have to prove something..innocents in a crime, that ppl cant breathe in space..that airplanes work…that gravity is real…we do not expect ppl to disprove things…no one asks you to disprove the existence of microwaves….or that the earth revolves around the sun…so why ask ppl to disprove the existence of a “god”? ……Bc you cant prove He is real and you want to. It is childish reasoning..lol.
“Also, what about that Mother Theresa dame? I’m pretty sure that her blind faith didn’t produce any attrocities, did it?”
LOL..Ok, Mother Theresa did not even believe in God most of her life…she did NOT have blind faith! In fact the reason she lived the life she did was..quote” I looked inside myself and saw a Hitler”…and she hoped to feel close to God….HOPED..
The difference between atheists and ppl like YOU are few and simple. One looks at facts, provable facts and reality to gain what one needs in life while accepting the truth that we cant know everything right now and is not afraid of the unknown…..and the other needs fiction, faith and to “feel” a certain way to live his/her life fully while being afraid of the unknown and needs comfort to function.
The bible is no different than any other book written. If you read it , it even says God makes mistakes! lol…Any “faith” based on a fallible deity is flawed.
There is also no difference between Jehovah, Thor, Shiva, Isis or any other “God” or “Goddess” in history.
One would gain more by asking why mankind feels the need to invent Gods to give their lives purpose than to believing in them.
What is so scaring about not believing in a God? Is religion necessary for morals? No…For equality of man and woman? No…To be happy? No…To love? No….To feel compassion and give to others? No…..To work? No….To enjoy nature and the world? No….To sleep soundly at night? No…To keep yourself and family safe? No…..So what is the purpose of religion? Nothing.
The think with ppl like you is that you dont want a discussion…you will not look at another point of view…you have your mind made up and even though there is NO proof of ANYTHING related to God…you belive and always will. You will justify every flaw in order to keep your fantasy alive.
Sure not ALL prayers are answered, but some are…we cannot understand God…God works in mysterious ways…God allows evil bc of free will…yet there is a plan….There is a Hell if you sin but if you repent you are forgiven…God is love..God says do not judge (yet who are the most judgmental ppl in the world? religious)..all men are created in his image (yet woman are the sinners…and when one wanted equality Jews made her the mother of Demons and erased her from the bible…) lol…
You give yourself an out for everything you cant explain bc you have a NEED to have faith in something larger than yourself..you are afraid of yourself and react in a childish way.
Instead of crusading against atheism bc you “believe it is counterproductive and dwells on details that are irrelevant.” why not combat your fear?
YOu might be interested in reading a blog I just posted about a(theist) logic.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/7ol42/athiest_logic_equivocal_to_theist_logic/
Stupid irrelevant questions. Atheism means you refuse to believe in a deity or god, not necessarily that you believe in evolution or any theory for that matter. Before trying to make an intellectual blog get the facts moron.
You’re right. I clearly do not understand the definition of atheism. Thanks for clearing that up.
I have a suggestion for you, too. Before hitting the “post” button, stop for a minute and ask yourself why it is that I might have brought up the topics I brought up.
Since you’re probably an idiot teenager with nothing better to do than troll the internet, I’ll explain it for you:
Because we do not, and in all probability never will have a “smoking gun” to cause every reasonable person to accept or reject a deity, the only criteria we have to make those decisions are tangential. Evolution has been a powder keg in this particular debate because one could argue (as many have) that it surmounts to evidence for or against (the Christian) god.
Chiefly, if evolution is true, then the Biblical account of Genesis is, depending on how generous you are in accepting allegory, entirely metaphorical but nonetheless valid, or completely flat-out wrong. The latter is the conclusion a huge number of atheists reach at about age 15 when they learn about Darwin in high school biology class.
If evolution were false, however (as it was de facto prior to about 1850 since the theory had yet to be developed), the explanation of Genesis is at least an explanation and thus, belief in God gave you a way to answer the question of where you came from.
I would think not many educated people today can look at the facts of evolution and dismiss them. Educated, religious people tend to interpret evolution as merely the mechanism by which God created us, and thus interpret Genesis as a metaphoric story. Most intelligent people can also appreciate a work like the Bible as potentially being 100% mythological without its diluting its value. I find atheists (and religious folks) who attempt literal translations of the Bible as a springboard for this debate to be some of the shallowest thinkers around.
Do you mind if i answer these questions out of order, i hope not.
Here goes.
number 10 first since its an easy one. We have no proof that aliens either exist or do not exist. We do know that it is possible for life to exist in the universe since we exist. It is therefore possible that there are other life bearing worlds with life on them (although we have found none so far). So, aliens, possible but no evidence. So do i believe in aliens? Yes. Why? Because given the size of the universe and given the fact that it is clearly possible i think it is likely that there is alien life.
Now for the real question. How is this different from belief in god? Surely god is possible and, like aliens, there is no evidence for his existence (to an atheist). Well, several points here. We don’t have any gods to show us that god is possible. Indeed, many of his capabilities are beyond anything we have seen. Alien life merely has to be like us and we know we exist. Secondly although on balance i think aliens might exist, i don’t actually know and don’t make any differences in my life whatsoever to accommodate them. I wear neither a tinfoil hat nor do i have alien invasion house insurance. Believers in god however do not claim to believe “on balance” but claim to “Know” and they do all kinds of odd stuff related to this such as elaborate rituals, singing, giving money and generally acting as thy think he would want them to (or not, then feeling guilty).
I apologise for going straight for your easy arguements first, but i’m fickle like that.
Next up is question 8.
Quite simply if the bible was viewed entirely allegorically there’d be no reason to believe in god and everyone would be an atheist. I would still argue that the bible is a bad book to base ones morals/lifestyle/philosophy off. If its entirely allegorical then its stories only have value in the lesons they teach. There are books out there that teach better lessons with better stories. If the bible is viewed allegorically then what on earth is with Leviticus, Deuteronomy, revelations, etc. What message exactly are these trying to get across?
The bible only has value as a guide if it is true. Otherwise we can get the good messages from the bible without the bad messages from better written books. Basically if the bible is not true, there is no reason to be a christian.
Okay, time for question 5.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Damn straight. However, absence of proof does not mean we should treat that thing as real either.
You do not worship gods such as Krishna, Zeus or Odin but there is no evidence disproving them either. You are not agnostic towards their existence are you?
How about pink dragons? There is no evidence that they don’t exist, only absence of evidence that they do. Are you an agnostic about pink dragons? Of course you aren’t.
In purely philosophical terms we cannot be certain about anything. But in realistic terms, we all act as if things with no evidence aren’t real all the time. You disbelieve in all gods except the christian one. You are an atheist to all gods but one. We just reject that one for the same reasons you reject the others.
Ok, bit of a harder one now, question 2.
How much science do i know? Rather a lot actually, even if i do say so myself. This is however irrelevant (if enjoyable).
I believe the scientific consensus because the scientists know what they are talking about. I do indeed trust them in the way a religious person trusts their preacher.
Faith you cry!
Not so. I happily admit that scientists can be wrong and that sometimes scientific ideas are changed, rejected and altered. Generally this only happens right on the cutting edge of science where new theories are grown, altered, cut and discarded all the time.
Furthermore whenever i choose i can buy a copy of nature, or any other scientific journal and read the actualy research. Furthermore i can read rebuttals to that research by scientists that disagree. Finally i can see the actual product of science all around me. Such as this computer, the lasers at a rock concert i went to last week, the pictures of the hubble space telescope and such like.
Sciences proof is in the pudding. We can see the results of scientific labour. Gene therapy, drugs, electronics, new materials (such as nylon and polyester, carbon nanotubes and buckyballs), all these things are direct working products of science. They are PROOF that it is working.
Your preacher may do much good work feeding the homeless, counselling the bereaved and building communities, all valuable stuff. But the pre-scientific nonsense he tacks onto it from the bible has no basis in fact. He cannot prove it, he can produce no good evidence in its defence.
So yes, i believe the scientific consensus (not necessarly individual scientists, its the scientific community as a whole that makes it work) because it can prove its claims.
In the areas which i am well educated scientifically, i know the proof quite well and can perform tests to show me i am right. With religion you cannot.
When religion makes real world claims and these claims conflict with the scientific consensus, religion is ALWAYS wrong.
Question 1. The big morality question.
Morality is clearly subjective. It changes over time. It changes over cultures and it changes between individuals within that culture. What i consider perfectly acceptable, others might consider wrong, even wicked, and vice versa.
There may well be an ULTIMATE morality, if so, we certainly have no clue what it might be. Since the major religions differ on it, they are clearly no good guide.
Lets take some examples.
Slavery. Biblically, this is fine. In my homeland, the UK, it was acceptable 300 years ago. Now, it is considered one of the most wicked barbarities imagineable. The moral zeitgeist has moved on.
Sex before marriage. Many today find this unacceptable (mostly religious types it has to be said). I see nothing wrong with it. As long as the sex is consensual and the two (or more) people taking part protect themselves from negative consequences such as unplanned pregnancies and STDs,go for it.
Smoking weed. Illegal in the UK. I see nothing wrong with it. I don’t smoke at all myself (although i dabbled in university) but as long as it is done in private, i don’t think i, or the state should give two hoots about folk smoking weed. Its certainly less harmful than getting drunk or smoking tobacco regularly. What i don’t think is acceptable is people smoking weed in public where others might get exposed to it. Thats non-consensual.
No while i am a believer in moral subjectivity, this doesn’t mean i consider all moral systems the same. I think my moral system is thebest obviously (or i wouldn’t hold it) but i do think the government should enforce the basics. These are the things that MOST people also believe. i.e. murder, theft, discrimination, etc.
So, a neo nazi clearly has a different moral system to me. He thinks it is perfectly acceptable to beat up or kill jews and blacks. I do not. I believe my moral system trumps his and i would like my choice (which is a vastly more popular choice than his) enforced.
Society is heavily dependant on shared moral systems. We don’t all have the same moral system but we share enough to get by together. Indeed my moral system differs from that of a christian only slightly, we agree on far more than we disagree.
when you say, that an athiest does not truely “know” science, but just believes what a person witha Ph.D tells them, and you go on to mention the iceage/global warming, may i state this one false point of yours ?
It is easy to write a book about the past, and get many to believe it. If i were to write a book, about a god, that i made up, and got 5 people to believe it, and then they inturn had 5 more people each to believen it, that is 30 people, and so on and so on, in time, it could because as wide spread and accepted as christianity, there is not much to prove anything by saying this other than saying the bible is more fact than a scientist ? no. To add to my point, it is much harder to predict the future, than to make up a past. Christians have tried for YEARS to tell when the apocolips will come, and have all failed, everytime. So why is it so wrong for a scientest to make a mistake as in what the weather will be like ? There are millions of tiny things that can easily change the futrue, making it much harder, than saying what has (truefully or falsely) happened in the past.
I’m not asserting that any religous text is more authoritative on any given subject than any given peer reviewed scientific work on any given subject. I am merely suggesting that in both cases – those who believe the word of God vs. those who believe the word of Al Gore – some amount of faith is extended because you personally have not born any witness to any observation that would prove to you that what either talks about is real. Put in simpler terms, suppose the Bible says the whole world became a flood, and only Noah and his ark survived it. Al Gore tells you that if humans don’t stop burning fossil fuels, in as few as 100 years from today the Earth will be 5 degrees warmer. You were not alive several thousand years ago to witness this the Ark, and in all likelihood you will not be alive 100 years from now to witness a temperature shift. You have made judgments on the sources (the Bible vs. global warming alarmists) and you have concluded that you believe the global warming alarmists but not the Bible. But in both cases you are merely taking their word (or not taking it). You have not observed either. And you likely don’t understand the science behind global warming better than any other layman, but you are probably certain that Noah never existed but Al Gore is spot on. I merely ask: how can you make that assertion in good faith?
As far as the Christians failing to predict the apocalypse, point taken. But as I’ve mentioned before, only 40 years ago, the climatologists of the day were convinced of an ice age. They, too, are wrong about the future of the Earth’s climate. Why is it okay and sensible to believe climatologists now – especially when they have been completely wrong in recent memory – but not okay or sensible to believe the Bible? Why is science necessarily superior?
The standard retort is to reissue the definition of the scientific process as if I don’t know anything about it, and my standard retort is to suggest this: how the world works is far less interesting to me than why it works the way it does. Science offers nothing on this subject. The Bible at least tries.
[...] [...]
First I must say kudos. For the most part this list has proposed some very interesting questions. A lot of them are difficult to answer. Difficult, but not impossible. Please allow me to answer these questions to best of my ability. But before I do, I wish to label my credentials.
My atheistic position is a weak positional agnostic atheist. Meaning I take the assumption that NO god (not just the Christian God) exist, however I understand and accept the fact that I do not know, and cannot know. And to assert 100% that God does not exist, despite knowledge that I cannot know, is not an assertion I am comfortable making.
My philosophical position is Socratic Philosophy, and I believe that the doubt of everything is essential for the pursuit of true knowledge (if we do not doubt, we do not challenge our beliefs. If our beliefs go unchallenged what certainty do we have that they are true?).
Finally, my educational position is a student in the field of Social Sciences. I am by no means an expert, but because of my years of obsession with the human condition, my educational pursuits of Psychology and Sociology, in addition to my years of researching human behavior makes me more than fluent on the subjects of Social Structures. I am also well versed in Quantum Physics (Which was my basis for my beliefs), Astro Physics, and Mathematical Principles. As well as many of the Scientific Laws.
Now, let’s begin.
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I am a moral relativist. Why? Ask a Sociologist, or better yet a Cultural Anthropologist. There are no set morals across the board. Virtually every culture since the beginning of culture has drafted their own unique set of morals and values. This set of values is determined by a process called Social Evolution. Which is the Evolution of a society based upon traits that are advantageous for the entire society to survive as an entity based in the stressors of the environment that the society was built in. Individual Morals are explained through Learning Cognitive theory, which is a fancy phrase for explaining personal choices in psychological development.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
This is my favorite question. Because it is true, at least for the common atheist. Most atheists do not know WHY they believe in scientific principles. They just do. However a responsible atheist will research what they believe and not blindly follow it because some guy in a white coat told them to. My beliefs in science are because I obsessively research scientific developments, I have strong sense of mathematics, and every scientific assertion that I believe in has consistent results and sufficient testing. I am also attracted by the Scientific Method because it is an objective form of gathering information.
Now it is true, I am not an expert on biology. (I could not answer most of your questions) I am not what you would call an expert in ANY form of science. But I know enough to know how it heralds results. So in conclusion MY belief in science is not based on faith, but based on reason and understanding of the scientific method.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
It is true that biological evolution cannot explain most of these phenomenon. But we can’t deny them merit either. So how does, with out god, a person explain the development of these traits if biological evolution does not explain them. I will attempt to rationalize these problems individually.
Language – Language IS a biological evolution. We are not the only race on the planet who has it. Wolves howl to attract its pack, bees dance to direct the hive toward nectar, virtually every creature on the planet has one or several ways to communicate information. This is a biological incentive known as preservation of the species. It is the same biological incentive that makes sexual reproduction an essential process. Now how language as we know it developed? This is a Social Evolution. As our brains get bigger and much more complex, we require a way to communicate basic ideas to the other people who we are stuck on this rock with. Through trial and error we associate certain sets of sounds with certain objects and ideals. This is a social trait, if we as a species did not require social contact we would not require language. Thus why asexually reproducing organisms DON’T have any form of language, because they do not require social contact.
Art – The origin of art is easily deduced from the first form of art, cave drawings. This, like language, is the need to communicate information. If Krok, the caveman, did something great, he would want other people who he probably never would meet to know what he did. (part of the human condition, the need to believe that you are somehow important) As we use art more and more, the art gets more complicated until, over time, it is no longer used to describe situations, rather ideals and idealism.
Music – When I think of music, I always think of History Of The World Part 1, where a cave man drops a rock on his foot and lets out a howl, and another caveman thinks this is beautiful and forms a choir of cavemen to drop rocks on their feet at certain intervals to make music. I cannot give evidence HOW music happened. But I can reasonably assume that the discovery of music was based off of an accident, and was not intentional. An early human stumbles upon a set of sounds he enjoys and begins to mimic them. Social Evolution begins to take place from here (as other humans hear this, they create their own music and communicate how they made the music, thus advancing the art).
Religion – This is actually the easiest to explain. As we see certain phenomenons in the world that we cannot explain, our need to rationalize these events leads us to the conclusion that a supernatural force is behind them. We begin to explain all these events through spirits or Gods, much like the ancient Greeks explained lightning through the god Zeus. Religion spawns from the same place science spawns from, the human need to rationalize and explain the world around us.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
Hypothetically if I met a person who did this, I would not be able to explain it. I would have to test this person, test how far he can go, test brain reactions, and find out if I can explain how he does it empirically. However no such case has come up. What it sounds like what happened to you is what is called cold reading. In which the “psychic” says general facts (albeit they do often SOUND specific) in such a convincing way that your brain in WANTING to believe it, so it fills in the gaps that he is not saying. You had mentioned you were in the top 5% of the world (a position that both you and I share). I present to you that far more intelligent people than either you or I believed in things much more ridiculous. I present my Grandfather, for example. He was a nuclear physicist, a Mathematician, and a computer scientist. He worked with the government trying to maintain and create new nuclear bombs. A position that by definition placed him in the top 0.1% of the worlds intellectual community. He was also a Scientologist (I don’t think I need to explain WHAT makes this ridiculous). The point is intelligence has no relevance on skepticism except for the fact that skeptics typically are intelligent people. But not all intelligent people are skeptics. One can retain their intelligence and buy into something completely against reason. I find it happens to all intelligent people at one point or another.
5. Is Absence of Proof, Proof of Absence?
No, by all means no. Absence of Evidence Does Not Imply evidence of absence. My question is, is it reasonable to assume if there is no proof either way, that it implies that the positive (ie God Exists) is true. I have no evidence to assume that fairies don’t exist, doesn’t mean I believe in fairies or unicorns. You can’t prove that Allah does not exist, or Shiva, or even Zeus does not exist. Does that mean that you’re going to start worshiping Zeus like you do the Christian God?
Absence of Evidence DOES NOT Imply Evidence of Absence. However if you can see that a system DOES NOT REQUIRE divine intervention, where is the logic in assuming that IT IS there?
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I believe my position allows me to live my life more (if I do not believe in an afterlife, than this is all I have, and I should live it), it purifies my morals (If I do good not because I will be rewarded, but because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO, than my morals are purer), and it allows me to release myself of the confines of faith, and learn new things with out the constant challenge of my faith getting in the way. For others? It might effect them well, it might not. My decision on the God Question is my own, I invite all others to come to their own conclusion.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
I came across my conclusion of God quite by accident. It wasn’t me asking if God existed, it started with a question. Does anything exist? My answer to this question was “Cogito Ergo Sum.” (I Think, Therefor I am). When I concluded That I exist, I could not assume that I exist in a vacuum, so the question became WHAT exists outside of myself. During this journey I found that the universe works perfectly well WITHOUT God. So, in conclusion, why should I assume there is one? As for my conclusions on Religion? Even if I am to assume that there IS a God, what is the reason to assume that any religion is correct on the notion? Am I to believe that an Omnipotent being who is REALLY so concerned with the goings on of a violent ignorant race that he would communicate with us? Even if people say they were communicated by a god, wouldn’t that be more evidence of insanity than evidence of God? How am I to conclude that a god of ANY religion exists? Or that man got it right?
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
I would argue the same way I do now, my beliefs would not be affected as you my think. I do not personally argue against specific gods unless they are mentioned by name in the argument. I personally argue against the Idea of ALL Gods not the dogmatic assertions thereof.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It’s not. Sure I’d rather people don’t try to talk to me about converting to their religion, but I don’t care if anybody believes in what I believe in. If I converted a christian to MY beliefs, I would actually think they are simplistic, and unable to come up with their own conclusion. What is important to me is that people question their beliefs and values, because if you refuse to question, than your beliefs are blind, and they prevent you from moving forward intellectually. Blind beliefs promote ignorance, and ignorance promotes hate or intentional misunderstanding. All of which are dangerous.
10. Do You Believe in Extra Terrestrials?
Aww, and you were doing so well…
Isaac Asimov, world renowned Science Fiction Writer and pioneer of Atheistic Thought presented this assertion – “Is There Life on other planets, or are we alone in the universe? Either Way, the idea is astounding.” Looking at the universe and it’s vast complexity it is mind boggling to assume that there isn’t a form of intelligent life somewhere out there. We have proof that life developed outside this planet (Bacteria from an asteroid hitting the polar caps), And we have Drakes Equation that Measures the probability of intelligent life outside this planet. So it is a REASONABLE assertion that there is Extra Terrestrial Beings. Now whether or not they have visited our planet? I remain unconvinced.
**********************
Yes, there are more questions than answers, but that does not mean we should launch to conclusion just because we cannot answer them, we MUST continue to try to answer them through empirical and logical means. Not means of faith.
In the end there will ALWAYS be more questions than answers. It is the human condition. Every question we answer spawns twenty or more questions. What do we do about it? accept it. The beginning of wisdom is not knowing everything. It is understand that you do not, and will never know everything… And that is Okay.
“If I do good not because I will be rewarded, but because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO, than my morals are purer.”
That’s really all you needed to say. You are an atheist because it makes you, in your own mind, somehow better than other people.
Not that religious people aren’t guilty of the same thing – many religions believe that only its followers are “chosen” by God and are therefore somehow special (i.e., better, more worthy, e.g. Judaism). Just goes to further my assertion that atheism is a religion in which the worshipper worships himself.
“We have proof that life developed outside this planet (Bacteria from an asteroid hitting the polar caps), And we have Drakes Equation that Measures the probability of intelligent life outside this planet. So it is a REASONABLE assertion that there is Extra Terrestrial Beings.”
Did you read my post? This is exactly the kind of hand waving I’m talking about. You’re certain that intelligent life exists in the universe (or at least, it’s very highly probable) but you believe it is very highly unlikely that God exists despite the void of proof in both cases.
Drake’s equation? Probability? Really? That’s evidence, now?
You live your life under the assumption that God does not exist but ET does when proof for neither exists. This, again, is evidence of the motivation behind atheism. It doesn’t have anything to do with logic, reason, intelligence, or reality. It was an emotional decision made for reasons impossible to quantify. It was made exactly the same way a religious person makes his decision to believe.
These comments just keep proving my thesis again and again. Please, keep it up.
Understand that probabilities are simply mathematical determinations of logic. How is it illogical to assume that probabilities cannot be used as evidence? Probabilities have been a form of evidence for centuries. The pioneers of science ran most of their beliefs and conjectures (many in which we have proven and still hold today), based off of the idea that this is the most likely scenario. This is a primitive form of logic and probability. For example: Isaac Newton postulated that the force of gravity is proportionate to the size of an object. He made calculations, with out knowing exactly how much the mass the earth has, and with no way of telling that he was right. And years later, come to find out, he was, it seems that our weight is less on the moon, than it is on earth, than we find that Gravity is a proportional effect from mass.
The fact is if something is probable enough to happen once (and we can much determine that life has appeared in this universe at least once), than it is logical to assume that it can, and probably has, happened again.
Now here is my concession: Just because something is probable, does not MEAN it happens. We see evidence of the improbable occurrences in day to day life, so the universe shouldn’t be any different. Who really knows? Maybe we were a freak accident, this is completely possible. I choose to trust my position on extra terrestrial life as a reflection of modesty, it just seems so mind-blowingly improbable that the universe would only produce life once in the billions of galaxies, each having billions of stars and planets, that the conditions that created life once CANNOT happen again. The logical position here is that it can.
I can give you probabilities, I can give you evidence. Why can you not produce the same? What is the probability of God? What factors would you use to determine this? Are there variables in which you know that God exists in? If so, what are they? How did you attain this information? So far I have not seen a single scrap of evidence, probability, material, or otherwise that indicates the existence of God. If you have this evidence, please enlighten me. (And don’t use abiogenesis, that is a tired out argument, that doesn’t factor in density of organic material (Amino Acids), all the possible combinations for DNA, the 1 billion (at least) years that it took for life to appear on this planet, ect. ect.)
Now, I must address your argument against my moral justifications. You ask me how my beliefs effect me in a positive way, perhaps knowing that this questions will inevitably make any person sound superioristic no matter what their belief, and you attack me on sounding the way the question was intended to be answered? This sounds an awful lot like a trap.
But, as I usually do. I will attempt to explain (perhaps in vain) my position. Understand, I do not believe that I am (by any means) generally superior to a theist because I do not personally believe in God. I actually argue to many of the atheists that I spend time with that we are not superior at all, we have simply come to a different conclusion based on our definition of truth (truth being the subjective definition of correct and incorrect). I have met many people who are logically, morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to me, however still believe (I come from a family of Geniuses, at least to MENSA’s standards, almost all of which are Christians and Catholics). So to assume that I am smarter or superior to these people who have proven time and time again that they are smarter (in general in certain areas, but in some instances almost globally) than I am, wouldn’t that just make me arrogant and ignorant? Wouldn’t I be just lacking the ability of humility in which my own moral code completely disallows?
Just because I have come to a different conclusion, does not mean I am better than the people around me. My conclusion is better for me, and necessarily for everyone else.
Now I understand that how I worded it implied certain things. I did not mean to imply that religious people are not capable of holding pure morals (doing things not because of reward, but because it is the right thing to do), though I understand it cam across that way. I simply meant to point out that because the idea of God is inert in my moral decisions IF I decide to do the right thing, it is for the right reason. And IF I decide to do the wrong thing, than it is my fault, and I am the only one to blame. It’s a double edged sword of accepting responsibility of ones own transactions that a truly moral person must walk.
Now this does not mean that pure morals can only happen in atheists. I personally know many theists who exercise pure morals, and take responsibility for their faults. Fear of of divine reprisal falls no more in their morality than it does in mine. So being atheist doesn’t make me morally superior in either.
What makes me superior (or inferior for that matter) is defined simply by my moral decisions, my intellectual capacities, and my output towards society measured against my intake from it. In none of it do I mean imply my belief in the nonexistence in an entity has ANY factor on what would give me my position in society (an I really wish the rest of world felt the same).
Now I must ask the question, why, instead of trying to argue the rest of my answers (like you do with everyone else) have you chosen to only attack my (by my own admission) weakest arguments? And why do you only chose to ridicule my arguments in lieu of making counterpoints, with examples. Why do you chose to ignore certain parts of my arguments, and then chose to cherry pick what is wrong and state with certainty that it’s all wrong because of it? Isn’t that a little biased? Are you even considering my argument? Or are you simply scanning through them in hopes of the (probable) chance that you will find a couple things that you can produce an argument that holds a little water? I would really like to know this.
I will leave you now with one question:
In absence of evidence for a positive (and absence of examples or variables to formulate a mathematical premise to explain the probability and/or the parameters of a positive) and the inherent inability to attain evidence for a negative. Is the positive position the logical base position?
Edit: “And necessarily for anyone else” in the 7th paragraph should be “And NOT necessarily for anyone else.”
Edit 2: Second sentence, first paragraph: cannot should be can
Jack – Because only a handful of the answers to your questions were worth elaborating on, and as I said in my original comment, I can already tell what kind of atheist you are so nothing else surprised me and I think I did a pretty good job of laying out my objections to that attitude throughout the post body and previous comments. I took a second look at your original comment and the only thing I would elaborate on is in response to this:
“That I exist, I could not assume that I exist in a vacuum, so the question became WHAT exists outside of myself. During this journey I found that the universe works perfectly well WITHOUT God.”
Let’s hear more about this journey, because my premise is that you can’t conclude either way. It’s impossible to know whether the universe works in spite of a God or because of a God, ispo facto, “god doesn’t exist” presumes to know more than can be known, also known as my major objection to atheism.
“So, in conclusion, why should I assume there is one?”
Why should you assume there isn’t one?
“As for my conclusions on Religion? Even if I am to assume that there IS a God, what is the reason to assume that any religion is correct on the notion?”
Duly noted, and I agree with you. Very few people approach these debates with the correct terminology: a deist is pro-diety: a God exists. A theist is pro-religion: a God exists and we know what he wants us to do and how to worship. Please also keep in mind that I am neither a deist, an adeist, a theist, or an atheist.
“In absence of evidence for a positive (and absence of examples or variables to formulate a mathematical premise to explain the probability and/or the parameters of a positive) and the inherent inability to attain evidence for a negative. Is the positive position the logical base position?”
There is no logical position that can be attained either way. That is one of the roots of the problem in this debate today. Atheists harp on logic all the time without understanding this principle. Their mantra is unilaterally that if there is no proof for or against an argument, you can’t simply stop there, you have to assign some kind of logical value to it so you can use it as a premise on which to base other decisions. I find that atheists are often atheists for no reason other than that they like to start down a path by saying, “If God exists, then…” In order to reach any conclusions, their conditional has to resolve to something. They have decided that since it must resolve, they assume that when decisive proof neither for presence or absence exists, it resolves to absent.
I claim that is not a fair resolution, and all attempts to justify said resolution are easy to derail. “We cannot detect him.” The only thing that tells you about God is that he’s undetectable.
Now, in the physical world where things like capital murder trials proof is an important thing and it is important to assume that if a murder weapon linking the accused to a crime can’t be found, it means that it doesn’t exist, not that he used an invisible, undetectable weapon. And that is not in conflict with any talks about god because the very definition of god puts it outside the physical world.
I think this issue is why atheists like yourself cannot accept the fact, no matter how many times I say it, that I am not arguing for the existence of a god. I’m merely attempting to show that it is not possible to reach a conclusion either way, and I don’t bother writing a post directed to theists who have concluded that God exists to show that they can’t know for sure because it’d be a one-line post: you can’t prove it. But by and large, theists know this, and they accept it; that’s the point of faith.
I direct these writings to atheists because they apparently have not gotten the memo that they cannot prove their position either! They are simply taking it on faith that God does not exist and I argue that this makes them indistinguishable from theists in that regard, and instead of worshipping the God they don’t believe in, they worship stupid shit like global warming, prepositional logic, “science”, conspiracy theories, and other nonsense to fill the void that we are all born with, as evidenced by the fact that religion in one form or another exists in every human culture ever known.
Emach,
Thank you for this time giving me a reasoned response. I can more clearly see your position. And I must admit, in your positional standpoint, you are correct. The dirty little secret is: Both sides are equally as likely (in the sense that neither side can be proven). Understand, I am, at base, a Schrodingeristic Agnostic (My little reference to my favorite Quantum Physics conjecture, Schrodinger’s Cat). Meaning: I believe that God both exists and does not exist.
I have spent years debating the God Question, because I found it thrilling to have a debate that nobody could win. But after years of debate, I found the side of the negative to be more challenging, and much more fun. Because of this I have attained the identity of Agnostic Atheist (Probably from years of being asked to “pick a side”).
I thought I would point this out, because you seemed to have misinterpreted my mission. I debate as fervently on the negative side as you do the positive side, for the same reason you debate the issue. To make people understand that both sides (even the negative side) deserve merit.
Well, it seems we’ve reached common ground, and we’re going to have to end the debate… If it’s so important to anybody who won, I guess because I’m making this concession, that unfortunately makes me the loser. But I’m okay with that. Because I thoroughly enjoyed the debate, and even a mass debater, such as myself has to lose as a humbling experience (it’s better than arguing semantics til the end of time). I look forward to arguing with you again (from what I see, we’ll a lot to argue about).
As Always
Your friend in dissonance,
Jack
This is actually quite amusing to read. Especially the part about wanting answers from intelligent atheists – I’m not going to claim I’m intelligent, but then I’m lucky in that the questions aren’t very intelligent either.
To start with the basics, the definition of atheism.
Atheism is the position when you don’t have belief in gods. Absence of belief is not belief in absence.
You can modify that to be strong or positive atheism, which is the position that gods do not exist, ie belief in absence. While these positions are closely related, they are distinct.
And don’t confuse it with agnosticism, agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief, the agnostic will say it’s unknowable, you can be an agnostic christian or an agnostic atheist. (and like with atheism there’s more than one version of agnosticism)
This is very fundamental, and you get it very wrong.
And then to your questions.
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
Has no bearing on atheism, wont bother to answer.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Has no bearing on atheism, wont bother to answer.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
Has no bearing on atheism, wont bother to answer.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
Is this person a god, does he state he is, do others state he is? According to christian doctrine I assume that would mean the return of the messiah, or perhaps rise of the beast – I’m not so familiar with christian mythology anymore, so don’t shoot me for getting it wrong.
Anyway, if this person is claimed to be god I may challenge the notion and examine the claims. However, as it stands now it’s too vague to reply to in this context.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
Is it? Why did you pick the christian god instead of Osiris?
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
The smug superiority you find in most atheist.
No seriously, another irrelevant question – what it gives has no bearing on whether atheism is a sensible position.
If you had restated the question as “what gives atheism” then it could have been interesting to philosophise about a bit.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
This question makes absolutely no sense. You don’t use logic to state facts about anything except statements and relationships between them. And god is not real as valid a “true premise” as any other. E.g. we can examine the premise of “god is not real” against the premise that “god is real” – we clearly see that both can not be true at the same time, if one is true, then the other is false. This however does not tell us anything about which claim is correct.
Your belief or disbelief in one or many gods has absolutely no bearing on a logical analysis of the stated claims.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
Has no bearing on ateism, but I’ll write a few lines anyway. This could possibly be the worst thought out question so far, what should I support? There’s neither less nor more to support for me. I’m not the one making any claims about gods, about what verses should mean or whatever. If they present a claim towards me, I will examine the claim, and that’s it.
But I’d like to turn this question around a bit, what if the same applied to all the believers reading the Rig Veda?
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
This one is quite funny, I’ll let it up to the readers to decide what I think about it.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
Utterly irrelevant question, has no bearing on atheism. But when that is said, I need to explain your false dichotomy here, you’re claiming there’s no evidence for either gods or ETs, so it’s impossible to have the position that there are no gods, and there are ETs at the same time. However, that would only be true if ETs were necessarily supernatural.
We know there is life on this planet, we know that the universe is rather big and we know there are other planets in it. We know some of the requirements of life as we know. And finally we know that the same requirements can be met on other planets.
We do not know anything about gods. We don’t know if they’re carbon based lifeforms, how many can stand on the point of a needle or even something as basic as what colour they are.
We have exactly zero knowledge of gods. Therefore the dichotomy of ETs vs. gods is completely and utterly false.
Having gone true your question I find them quite amusing, through your questions you have demonstrated a total lack of comprehension of what atheism is, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand logic, that you don’t…
I’m frankly dissapointed. You should both think and study the subject matter before you challenge intelligent atheist, when the questions are at best silly on average for me with my meager intelligence…
And no, you are absolutely not a “neutral” person on this subject – every question demonstrates extreme bias towards only one set of possible explanations, however, the questions being poorely thought out only reveal something about your biases and lack of understanding. They don’t say anything at all worthwhile about atheism.
I’ll probably come across as a angry or agressive person, the reason is the dishonesty of these questions – they are simple “intellectual” traps for the simple minded, they are not intelligent questions, for the most part not deserving of a question – it’s the obvious deceit which pisses me off, when I started replying I tought to myself – ah a nice little intellectual challenge – less than halfway true I had lost all hope of meeting an intelligent question, but expected only more of the same poorely stated simple traps.
You sir are not honest when you claim neutrality. If you are honest, then you are far less intelligent than you presume you are.
vinarliga,
Corvus corax
So, most of these comments have been good. Others, like this last one, are a waste of time. I don’t believe in deleting comments unless they’re spam so I’ll leave it up for you all to see, but seriously? How have you improved this discussion in any way? All you’ve done is assert that I’m a retard under the veil of humility by self-deprecating your “meager” intelligence as you put it. You don’t think the questions are relevant? Fine. Then don’t answer them.
The answers to these questions do indeed offer absolutely nothing to the presence or absence of a God – I believe that we’re all agnostics whether we admit it or not.
By the way, if you’re going to respond here, please do not waste space on the page by redefining terms that everybody understands. Especially don’t do it if you not only define the terms incorrectly and then point out that I’m the idiot when not only am I not, but you don’t even understand the difference between atheism and adeism.
The purpose of these questions is to explore the process by which an atheist decides to be an atheist. Ultimately, everybody decides: there either is a god or there isn’t.
If these questions are so irrelevant to atheism, then perhaps the intelligent atheists among you will explain to me why many of the topics addressed in these questions, such as morality, are cornerstones of the atheist platform. It’s nearly impossible to hear a mainstream atheist argue for the absence of a divinity without listening to them rant about the evils of Christianity and the superiority of the atheists’ good deeds for goodness’s sake. Or listening to them rant about the Bible. Thus question #8. It isn’t hard to find an atheist whose primary motivation for abandoning his religion was the absurdity of its teachings (e.g., the Bible). My motivation for this question was to get you thinking about whether this might be the case for yourself. And, coincidentally, if this is the case, you may certainly have become an atheist, but are you still an adeist?
Please keep the comments constructive. If you aren’t going to offer anything other than a rant about how I’m an idiot, redirect your comments to the bottom of a VenomFangX video or something.
I have just one thing to say. Any Christian AUTOMATICALLY rejects EVERY other religion. Correct? I understand the bible says to do so and they must see all other religions as false BUT if you asked them to look at other religions ( Hindu, Islam, Buddhism etc) from a “neutral” viewpoint and ask them how they HONESTLY feel about ALL other religions, the answer would always be that they are ridiculous or silly. And without any research or insight, dismiss them as bogus. So atheists and Christians feel EXACTLY the same about all other religions, namely, that they are ridiculous. I just don’t see how the can go from that obvious TRUTH to believing in their own religion. They KNOW (not because the bible tells them so) Hindus (for example) are wasting their lives believing in something that doesn’t exist. This is very astonishing to me
Before reading a comment just a short scroll down I thought that I was going to be the only Christian commenting on this blog. I’m glad this is not the case but anyway.
The reason I’m commenting is because I wanted to thank you for your standpoint and clear expression of some impressive knowledge. I love learning about sciences (although I have so much to learn) particularly about Anatomy, Biology and Chemistry. The only problem with me is I can’t seem to find people who know their stuff that aren’t hopelessly biased. Please bear with me as I explain: I am like Cylar, I love God. I see small signs of being loved and things being taken care of in my life.
It is because of my choice, the personal evidence I have accepted as love from God and my own curiosity that I want to learn about science from a /neutral/ standpoint since I have made the choice to be faithful already and want science to prove what I have come to see and believe by itself. I can’t get this though, you yourself have responded to some (not all are alike) of the very people who are making it so I can’t get what I want.
I can’t learn about others views on the evolution of life forms as opposed to Creation and ID and the subtleties of both theories without there being about a hundred comments about past mistakes of the Christian Church, conglamorating (sp) of all Christians into the extreme right-wing conservative belief group (which I am not, I trust neither political party) and the standard ripping on the Bible. Very hurtful, but who cares? They’re the logical atheists and I’m ignorant and blind. (sarcasm)
Christians are also guilty of this, although obviously I tend to agree on what they say, what person that I debate with (a long time from now, lots of stuff to learn) will respect me when the only sources I have are those that say ‘Glory to God’ after discussing every aspect of science? It’s nice( to me) but not what I’m looking for.
Given all these circumstances the discovery of your blog and true neutrality is a breath of fresh air and a blessing that I am grateful for. I wish knowledge on Biology/scientific laws etc. was available from more people like you.That probably wasn’t your intention but none the less it is my personal view. Thank you.
You are for damn sure a lot smarter than me, and will probably disagree with aspects of my post despite it being intended as a thanks. Due to these factors and their possible outcomes, whatever your response (if you deem one prudent) I hope I can learn from it anyway.
Peace.
So much ignorance, pontificating, and blather about what Christians do or don’t say, think, or believe. It’s clear enough that nobody here (including the original blogger) has a clue about what it means to be a member of God’s kingdom. The problem is that you all appear to be outside the window, looking inside at Christians and trying to figure them out.
It is truly the blind arguing with the blind. None of you “gets it.” Not one. Neither did I until I was introduced to the person of Christ Jesus and voluntarily made the decision to crown Him as Lord of my life. I’m not any smarter than any of you; probably just the opposite. I do not care about what science says or does not say, even though I happen to think the real science is actually on my side. It’s simply that “I know what I saw, and nobody is going to tell me that I imagined it.” It’s like that.
I don’t just “believe” in God. I know Him personally. I’m a friend and brother to His Son Christ Jesus, who was and is both God and man. Who walked among us, who proved through His testimony and His miracles that He was exactly whom He said He is. Whose blood was poured out for the sins of ALL mankind, who died, who was resurrected three days later, who rose back into Heaven, who now sits at the right hand of God the Father, who one day will return again at the end of time to separate His people from the rest and take home His adopted sons and daughters.
God isn’t just a man in the clouds. He’s my Father. I know him and talk to Him. I hear His voice in my heart; I feel His Presence. He’s real. How do I know that? Because I have experienced His power first-hand.
None of you appear to have had the benefit of feeling God’s presence, His Holy Spirit, inside of you. You argue about which that you do not understand. You are all as three-year-olds attempting to dissect and understand a brain. You are fools, and I know this because I was once like you, until I met God.
No one here appears to have the faintest clue about what it’s like to experience His love, grace, and forgiveness firsthand, so tangible at certain moments that it seems you could reach out and touch Him. To feel warmed by His love, to know that you’ve been redeemed by the death of His Son upon that cross. I never know just quite where my feelings end and his Spirit really begins, but that’s OK.
For me, I feel that the most strongly at the moments when I’m standing in church, surrounded by the other children of God, putting my own wants and needs fully aside and concentrating completely on praising Him, on giving myself over to Him completely.
I also feel it when I pray to Him, when I see miracles happen right in front of me, and when I humble myself by being willing to serve others, even the ungrateful and the unbelieving.
That giving over of oneself means denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and running after Jesus, allowing Him to guide you and protect you. One step at a time. One day at a time. It means coming to rely on God completely. It means serving others and loving them as Christ did, even if they aren’t Christians or believers in unchanging morality; it means loving and praying even for those who persecute you and wish to kill you for talking about Jesus!
It truly is a blind faith at first, but as you grow and learn, you gradually begin to see better and better. You understand. You begin to connect the dots of what you’ve experienced here and there. It all starts to “make sense.” It’s like you’re looking down on your life from above (God is) and seeing things that were not visible from “ground level.”
Until you’ve been there and done that, it isn’t something that anyone can possibly understand or identify with. You can’t just listen to someone else talk about it, and neither is it a place you get to by walking through a set of logical steps. Knowing God Incarnate through Jesus (the only name given under Heaven by which we may be saved) is a decision made with the heart, not the mind. That doesn’t mean that you have to “check your brain at the door,” but you’re not going to find this path in a laboratory, a field reasearch project, or even in the pages of a philosophy textbook.
One more thing. Put aside any nonsense you may have heard about Christians believing themselves to be better than others, or members of an exclusive club. While it is true that there is but ONE path to God the Father, real and authentic followers of Christ recognize themselves as the weakest, most fallen, most sinful members of humanity of all, redeemed ONLY by the Blood of the Lamb (Jesus). In other words, we’re not perfect, just forgiven. As for belonging to a club, all of humanity is separated into two groups: those who have heard and accepted the Truth, and those who are still living in darkness and confusion.
Jesus provides everlasting life in the next world; He provides wisdom, guidance, and protection in this one. He calls on us to fellowship and worship with other believers, and to love and serve EVERYONE, not just other Christians.
You may sniff, you may scoff at my testimony, that’s OK. In fact Christ said, “The highway to hell is broad for all the multitudes who choose its easy way. But the Gateway to Life (Him) is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it.” I don’t mind ridicule and head-shaking; this is pretty mild compared to what my brothers and sisters in the Lord are experiencing in countries like China, Sudan, Egypt, and countless other countries where the authorities are afraid of the Gospel.
Read this link. Christ will give anyone Living Water without cost, to all who would hear and believe.
http://www.bible.com
I gotta say, this last post is exactly why atheism is attractive to people.
The whole “no true christian” angle is so tired and played out. I don’t disagree with it per se. Sometimes all it takes is an experience that one could only describe as biblical to change a person, but this entire post is laced in spiritual elitism which, in a lame attempt to misdirect us from that obvious fact, comes with this caveat:
“Put aside any nonsense you may have heard about Christians believing themselves to be better than others,…”
No, you’re not better. You’re just the only one of us in this discussion who knows what you’re talking about for no other reason that you say you crowned Lord Jesus the king of your life.
I’m sorry but that sounds fucking stupid. You wonder why you get attacked? This is why.
My approach here has been specifically to avoid this kind of blather because being “in the know” simply because you say so is not good enough for religious skeptics. Many atheists are driven to become atheists specifically becuase of nonsense like this. “Oh, you don’t know Christ. I do. Let me show you. Here, put some money in the plate and say this prayer with me.”
My goal with a post like this is to try to show atheists that they don’t need to be atheists because people like you aren’t atheists.
Sheesh.
Very interesting post – thanks for writing it.
Atheist can not fathom something they cannot see or hear. God must give you spiritual eyes and ears to see His Truth (Jesus) Reading The Holy Bible like you would a text book futile! The Word of God pierces the soul! Its not of man’s intellect (pride) or mankind’s wisdom (Foolishness) its spiritual in nature, beyond the realm of the world of the flesh. Only true Christians will understand what I am saying. For those who don’t have spiritual eyes and ears, it would be like me trying to explain the many shades color to someone blind from birth. God bless you all with His Mercy and Grace.
I am a Christian (you know go to church, pray, etc). But I’m irritated by the arrogance of the assertion that there are questions every atheist _must_ answer. If you don’t believe in God, which is a reasonable (and for what that’s worth, popular) position, why do you have to be able to say where morality originates, and whether there are absolute moral standards, as if the answer might prove that there is (or isn’t) a god? If as an atheist I believe that there are no moral absolutes, this proves nothing, and nor does it make one any less moral. I’m so often embarrassed by my co-religionists! Take evolution – these days more of an observable process than a theory, yet we still fight for a literal interpretation of the bible. Good grief! And just to establish my bona-fides, Jesus IS Lord!
I’m a little late to the party but so what?
Of course G-d doesn’t exist. Things exist. Man is a thing and arrogates to himself that G-d is like him in order to be. We have the category of Faith to deal with the “Divine Creative Spirit”. Reason doesn’t pertain as it has only and forever to do with measurement. Reason, therefore, gives knowledge of things. Aristotle says “Knowledge is always knowledge of something.” So, we can’t “know” G-d. In the bible it is written “knowledge that surpasseth understanding.” That is intuition. Reason blinds us to intuition. To quote Blaise Pascal, “The heart has its reason which reason cannot know.” So what is really going on with the Real? I personally think the whole thing, the whole Universe, is alive, an Apotheosis. We are part of the instrumentality by which “G-d” realizes “himself”. Isn’t it interesting that on the emergence of sentient life from the primordial ooze we also have the emergence of Virtue and its concomitants, beauty, truth, wisdom, liberty, justice, etc.? These are wonderful spirit enoblers not available till, at least on the Earth, man.
Late I may be, but I have to say something:
You are “statistically intellectually smarter than 95% of the population”? Well I’m smarter that the 98% of the population (exam and all), and I know than intelligence has to do with the capacity for very fast learning and understanding, but not with what you know, how you know it, or even how good are at informal logic. Some really smart people are also really delusional and the most difficult paranoias to cure are the ones hold by people who are in the very right extreme of the iq scale. Being smart doesn’t make you (or me) better thinkers, it just makes us faster learners and the two things don’t go necessarily hand by hand.
About your questions:
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I’m both and neither. This is indeed a false dichotomy. The are things for what I’m an absolutist, an others for what I’m a relativist. And several actions like “kill” or “lie” depend on context. Killing because you don’t like a person is wrong, but killing to defend your self or your family, that is another stuff.
But, the most important thing to say here is that the morality of religious people is not religion based in most of the cases, is base in their social context. When you know someone whose morality is absolutely based on religion, you know a very dangerous fundamentalist.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
I’m a scientist actually. I do know people that have faith in science without knowing what it is, but they are weird cases. You do not have to know every last thing about science to trust it, you just have to know the method and the achievements of that method throught time (science is a method after all).
What have religion achieved in anything except art? (I do recognize that religion has inspired some of the greatest art)
I can answer all your human evolution questions, but I don’t see the point of them. I do know very little about quantum physics, that doesn’t mean I trust science by blind faith, I trust it because I know how it works and what it has achieved (with all the very human dynamics inside it included).
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
Of course there’s still a lot to study about, there is a lot to study of almost every subject you can imagine, what are you trying to say? That science do not has all the answers? It doesn’t but religions have them either (and no, “God did it”, it’s not an answer, it’s just like my mother saying “because I say so”), so what it’s your point?
Just a little correction: neardenthals did have some forms of art, and we don’t if erectus didn’t have it. And some of the first manifestations of art, necklaces and carvings, are more that one hundred thousand years old. Chimps do some form of primitive drumming in the wild. And there are species of birds that do something that could be called decorative art.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
I do know some of the things that “psychics” do to fool people. some times with very specific details and not just by cold reading. You would have to give more details.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
No, but also most atheist are not the “100% sure there is no god” kind, we don’t make the claim that “god doesn’t exist”, we just don’t believe in it and we say it’s the religious people job to try proved it exist with all the features they give to it. Until now, they have failed.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
I was religious and being an atheist has improve my life. But that’s just anedoctical, may be we need a social study… Wait, there are social studies that show that atheist do share some positive things, go look for them!
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
“God is not real” can be a premise, smart you.
If you mean if I would study those you call facts before reaching the conclusion that “God is not real”, I will (not really the facts, but the data about them). Just tell me what facts.
If you are refering to the Bible, I already read it, and actually I think there’s not better book (except for the Quran) to convert people to atheism.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
What would they do to support their position in such a case? I’m not making claims, I’m not even making the claim that god doesn’t exist (I just don’t believe in it, what it is different). You have to convince me, not the other way around.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It’s not.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
What for? I will assume you are talking about extraterrestrial life in general and no the green visitorss kind. You can propose scenarios were it could exist, conditions that must take place in order to it exist, even other things that must happen if it exist. Can you make the same with god? with what god?
I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Though I was a kid at the time, I do remember that. However, I think it was more of the news media taking the speculations made by some scientists and then screaming “OMG! We’re headed for a new ice age!”
However, even as far back as the late 19th century, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius theorized that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels could cause global warming, so it’s not like this is something climate scientists pulled out of their asses during the Reagan years.
Besides, we’ve learned so much more since the 1970′s that it is disingenuous to argue that because some scientists back then thought we could be entering a cooling phase means that concern over global warming is unfounded.
When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
One thing you seem to be overlooking (though if you addressed it elsewhere and I didn’t see it, then my apologies) is that many of us who are atheists now once were religious. Heck, I even had the Bible in my bed when I went to sleep when I was a believer.
So, for many of us, we started with the premise that God was real and then gradually worked our way towards atheism because we had questions and doubts and could not reconcile our religions beliefs with these doubts.
As for atheist arrogance, I look at it this way. The worst thing an atheist can say about a Christian is that he is dumb or misguided in his beliefs. The best thing a Christian can say about an atheist is that it’s sad that the atheist is going to burn in hell for all eternity for not accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.
the theory of atheistic evolution can not be proved yet it is taught in classrooms because it seems to be scientific. in reality it is based on faulty logic not actual science which makes it more of a fairy tale. so just like I do not believe in santa I guess I do not believe in evolution for the same reason. kind of a strange thing to say but if you look at the complexity of things it looks like it is designed by an artist and not the product of chance and magic.
As an atheist you have to accept the fact that life on this planet is a result of a 1/100,000,000,000,000 chance(if that). The complexity of life is very difficult to explain by chance and almost nonexistent probabilities. Take the eye for example. How did it evolve? How is it able to focus both short and long distances? The list of unexplained examples such as this go ON AND ON. In order to help boost their ego an atheist will put others down, such as claiming to be the “intellectual elite” etc. I can tell you this, the so called “smartest” individual can be either an atheist or a believer just as as easy as the dumbest. Either way we all will bow before an Almighty God and every atheist that ever walked the face of the planet will be reconciled on that day. You can take it to the bank, it will happen. And BTW, no matter what sort of derogatory responses I receive I’m glad that I’m not the one banking an eternity on a 1/100,000,000,000 chance.
Here’s an article about the various “anthropic coincidences” (i.e. unexplained fine-tuning of physical parameters) that allow for sentient life in the universe. (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf).
It’s a question well worth thinking about. That author discusses a few explanations for the anthropic nature of the universe:
1. The only possible universe is “designed” for creating observers of itself.
2. Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being.
3. An ensemble of un-anthropic universes (i.e. universes with no sentient life) is necessary for our universe to exist.
The “in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were entering an ice age” thing is not really true. You’ve fallen for an urban legend.
This short film debunks that myth.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/28/EU_AtHkB4Ms
I’m athiest…I commend you trying to be neutral and looking at it from both sides but it seems u were not able to understand how an athiest thinks… Atleast you tried…
-> “I don’t. And while I admit that Christianity has been the cause of great suffering for many people over the years, I also believe that it has been the cause of great happiness for many people over the years. Does the good outweigh the bad? I am inclined to think yes. Personally, I’d rather take the good with the bad than take nothing at all, which is the atheist position as I see it.”
An athiest still calls his mother to see how she is doing.. and celebrates her birthday… loves their children… donate to charity… helps their friends in need… parties!!!
They dont beleive in god, but when u tried to understand them, u reduced them to nothing at all?…. I think all those things are good…
Imaging having all that without wars etc… Isnt that good?.. isnt that something?
I think you just discovered that your a religious person …
Congrats!!!
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
Neither, I am a moral anti-realist and moral error theorist. There are no objective values. Moral judgments involve a particular type of emotion – of moral approval or moral disapproval. People often project these subjective emotions onto the world and mistakenly believe that a property or “wrongness” exists, when it does not. An analogy that might make this more clear would be the concept of “deliciousness”. There is no mystical property of deliciousness that ice cream somehow instantiates. If you find ice cream to be delicious, it is purely because of how your biology and psychology are set up. If someone disagrees with you and says that ice cream is not delicious, they are not making a logical error – they are not failing to detect some special property of ice cream. They just have different taste buds or preferences than you do. Delicious is in your head, not in the food. Same exact thing with morals – it’s all in your head – there are no moral properties out there in the world.
If you are a moral relativist (you do not judge other cultures, such as the Iranians, because their moral code is different than your own)…
You are writing this as if moral relativists are required to be tolerant. But that makes tolerance like an absolute moral principle, which makes no sense for a moral relativist to hold. You can believe there are no absolute moral principles, but subjectively adopt certain principles, promote the principles that you adopt and try to suppress other principles – and you will not be committing any factual or logical error in doing so.
If God created the moral laws, on what did he base them?
(1) If he based them on some existing principle, then that means that they are independent of God – so God is not actually the creator of the moral laws.
or
(2) He based them on nothing – on a whim – they could be anything and he could change them at any time. They are simply what God commands. If God commands you to torture children, then it is morally good to torture children and you ought to be happy to do so.
Approximately 50,000 years ago (the numbers vary), we suddenly see an explosion in things like archaic flutes, abstract cave drawings (not just representations of observations like antelope and men with spears), venus figurines, evidence of ritual burials, etc. Before this date: nothing.
You’ll find that in order to explain this you have to rely on the same kind of faith in evolution and natural selection that Christians use in defending their faith.
It’s not clear to me that evolution or natural selection are the only explanations. This could be evidence of a primitive cultural or technological revolution. One guy stumbles onto the idea of a flute and then others like it and rapidly copy the idea. The mental capacity to make, use, and appreciate a flute could have existed long before the first flute was actually made.
We have musical instruments like synthesizers that didn’t exit a hundred years ago yet the genetic difference between people living now and one hundred years ago are minute.
Is some scientists claiming to have certain proof of what caused the rise of music and art?
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
My response to this is that if the medium wants to be taken seriously they should submit to a scientific study under controlled conditions. Then the researchers can have the study peer reviewed and publish their results to tell us if:
(1) This is a scam – the medium has a way of obtaining background info on people.
or
(2) The medium is no better a telling things about people than random chance would suggest, but the medium is a skilled psychological manipulator and can make people believe the ruse.
or
(3) There is something going on here that can not be explained scientifically.
etc.
Houdini was fascinated by this kind of thing (psychics, etc.) and debunked a number of frauds. Being a skilled magician he know how easy it was to fool people.
There is a large history of otherwise intelligent and sensible people being scammed out of their money or otherwise fooled by fraudsters – verses no solid scientific evidence for paranormal activity. Based on the evidence I am a non-believer in the paranormal until a repeatable scientific study proves otherwise.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
This belief is fundamental to the atheist position. You must answer yes to this question or you have a very hard time denying most, if not all, religious beliefs. However, you should also see how absurd this statement is. The fact that it is always impossible to prove that something does not exist does not change the fact that it cannot be known that something doesn’t exist. So mustn’t you be agnostic? I’ve heard responses to this one too, but they have so far been illegitimate and unsatisfying.
You can not remain actively skeptical about everything and remain a functional person. If I need to cross the street and see a car coming, I could say to myself – hey, maybe my senses are fooling me – maybe there is no car and it’s perfectly safe to cross now. But I’m not skeptical about that – not at all, I’m not even going to entertain the idea that I could walk in front of a speeding car just in case maybe it’s not really there.
Our senses do fail us at times – people sometimes get hit by cars because they did not see the car coming. So when we have the luxury of collecting many observations in different ways over a period of time it vastly reduces the chance of a sensory error. This could consist of simply looking twice before you cross the street or acknowledging that there is no know case of someone ever capturing a magical creature like a fairy.
There are an infinite number of things that could exist. We are justified in being dismissive of ideas with no credible evidence.
Could Bigfoot exist? Possibly. But I am very, very skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot to the point of being dismissive of the idea, and can, for all practical purposes, be counted as a Bigfoot non-believer.
No one has captured a live Bigfoot, no one has brought in a dead Bigfoot. No one has even brought in a pile of Bigfoot shit with some type of unidentified primate DNA. Plus, there have been several proven Bigfoot hoaxes. The normal and reasonable approach to things with no evidence is to disbelieve.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
I value reality, or the best understanding of reality of which I am capable. The truth is a source of enjoyment to me.
I live as an atheist because that is what I believe is true. I didn’t shop around for worldviews to see which one offered the most happiness. Even if I had tried to pick a worldview based on happiness, it would not have worked.
People don’t change their beliefs to gain rewards or avoid punishments – they change their actions to gain rewards or avoid punishments. If I offered you a million dollars to believe something that was clearly not true – say that there was an elephant in your bedroom – you wouldn’t be able to believe it. Although you might alter your actions to try to fool me into thinking that you believed it.
Rational people don’t choose their beliefs – compelling evidence imposes a belief on them.
To try and answer your question, atheism has saved me from having to try and make try and sense of the unpleasant things in life like suffering and death. I don’t have to worry about why a good, omnipotent God would allow evil and suffering.
Knowing that there is no ultimate purpose behind my existence allows me to lead an experience based life. I don’t have to spend time worrying about how to live my life as a competition – as some poorly understood game to win the judgment day contest. I can focus on the quality of the life I have now and pursue the kind of experiences that I find enjoyable or rewarding.
But isn’t it hard to beat back that voice in the back of your head that says, “What you do really matters.” or “There is right and wrong and you didn’t invent it”?
I don’t have those voices in my head.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
The same thing I argue now – that there is no credible evidence for the existence of God. That the world is not better explained by introducing the idea of supernatural entities.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
Because false theistic beliefs are the driving force behind a lot of social oppression. In large part conservative ideas about the following topics are based on theistic beliefs. Sexuality, birth control, homosexuals, abortion, public health care, and others.
Of course not every conservative holds their beliefs because of religion, but I think that many do at least in part. If there were less religion I think that fewer people would hold conservative views on the topics mentioned – and this would lead to more social freedom and happiness.
1. If by absolute morals you mean that there is some cosmic truth about what is moral and what is not, then I guess moral relativist.
2. This is a generalization. But, yes, I would say that my trust in science (Which, by the way, is not the same as scientists) is based on science.
As to your questions-I don’t know the answers to most of them. So? And as for seeing the evidence and drawing myown conclusions, it seems relevant that these scientists, unlike God, I know for a fact to exist. As for science being wrong: If scientists were always right, then there would really be no need to continue working on it.
3. It appears you mean why, not where. If so, then I would point out that most mutations are neutral in their effect on species.
4. I don’t believe you. If I were to encounter one myself, then I might be convinced, but that might not be proof to someone else.
5. No. Atheism does not require the answer to be yes at all.
6. Why must there be a benefit to something for it to be true? How will Tornadoism improve your life? I don’t deny the existence of tornadoes, simply because it won’t improve my life. I don’t care-they still happen!
7. Who said I do?
8. Well, “there is no reason to interpret the bible as entirely allegorical” would probably be the biggest argument.
9. Hey, that’s a huge generalization. I couldn’t care less if you’re an atheist.
10. What? No. Though given the size of the universe, there is likely to be life on other planets, most if not all of it would most likely be bacteria or other simple cells.
[...] It would be just as easy for religious people (Christians and others) to compose impossible questions for atheists to answer. Such inability to provide an answer does not however prove that God [...]
Great questions. I have a shorter list of questions for atheists on my blog. The first two are (unintentional) variations on your questions 1 and 3. The last one I find the most interesting. It is “Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology?” My premise is that the notion that the scientific method is the *only* way of learning about the universe is a social construction–one that we are conditioned to believe without question. My view (and that of other Christians) is that God provides another way to find out about Him. This “spiritual epistemology” does not replace or contradict science, but it can speak where science is silent. Check it out (http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24) and thanks for the interesting article.
I like hearing and trying to understand both sides. One thong to point out though that really caught my eye was when you said how “a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes..” I would have to disagree. I am a Christian and we don’t have priests, (Catholic church does though, much different way of practicing their faith). I have trust through the events in my life that has proven to me that God is real.
Sorry if that sounded rude. I don’t want to sound like that at all.
“Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology?”
No.
Does that answer your question?
Why not, Francois?
Because any attempt to evaluate an “alternate epistemology” would have to be done from the perspective of my own epistemology, thus making the whole exercise pointless. What you’re asking is, essentially, logically impossible.
How’d you get your existing epistemology in the first place?
“How’d you get your existing epistemology in the first place?”
Well, I’d say that we all have an inbuilt form of epistemology. After all, babies basically discover how the reality around them works, all by themselves. Of course I can consciously adopt this or that principle in evaluating statements, but the basics of it I think are inborn.
re: “inborn” knowledge
I think you’re right that we learn about how the world works as we grow and experience it. Further, we (humans) learn from each other. I have a blog post that argues that the idea that the scientific method is the *only* way of learning about the universe is a social construction–one that we rarely question. Check it out. http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24.
Also, I think it’s a good idea to use you brain and the scientific method to evaluate all truth including truth about God. Communication with God doesn’t replace science, just augments it.
This is nonsense. Your entry provides us with no alternative, and it does not provide us with the means to evaluate any alternative. What is your alternative, and how do we evaluate it? Answer these questions or your side of the discussion is nothing but hot air.
Hey Francois, do you ever look into the mirror and think to yourself, “Wow, I use the word epistemology on the internet. I’m a giant douche!” If you haven’t, you should start.
The only people who use the word epistemology are pseudo-intellectuals who remain in the world of academia as useless graduate student drones or as equally useless professors. It’s an extremely vain attempt at sounding sophisticated. The only problem is that it doesn’t work.
Stop wasting your life at some second rate university and invent something or get a job at a factory making socks. At least someone will appreciate the socks.
… I’m not the one who used “epistemology” first. Fizixgeek did. Why do you write a long diatribe against me using the term when one of your people did it first and I was just answering them using their own words?
Christian double standard anyone? Take out the hypocrisy out of your eyes before you start ranting against the sawdust in my own eye.
You’re right Francois. Fizixgeek is a douche too.
[...] answer a few more. I searched on questions that baffle atheists, dug a bit to find some, and found this link. Here are this guy’s particular ten [...]
1. No. I believe in error theory, a form of moral nihilism.
2. No. I trust science because the achievements of the scientific method makes it trustworthy. So it’s neither science nor faith.
3. People.
4. I would assume they had been stalking me or is otherwise tricking me, but if they can prove they are not I would have to accept their psychic powers.
5. No.
6. Atheism does not help people. However, it does not hurt people either, so it is at worst neutral.
7. When I use logic I have many premises, but “God does not exist” is not one of them. I try my hardest to make my premises clear, so that my opponent can reject them if he likes.
8. My lack of belief in God is not based on my belief that the Bible should be interpreted literally, so my position would not change.
9. It is not important to me. I pursue the God-debate because I think it is philosophically interesting, I don’t care about the people themselves.
10. I do not believe in extra-terrestrials. However, I believe they are more likely to exist than a god. This is because we have already confirmed the existence of life, so the existence of life on other planets is not a big leap. If we found one god, then the existence of other gods would seem more probable.
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
Everyone has a different moral code, based on many factors, like upbringing, geographical location where they were raised, books read, television programs viewed, friends and associates, family members, genetic predisposition and other things. Everything contributes to some extent to their overall moral character and beliefs as they pertain to moral values. The older we get, for most of us the more we realize that life isn’t black and white, like it seemed to be at a younger age. What I mean by this is there are many situations that throw considerable loopholes into questions that were previously thought of absolute. Abortion, Murder, Saving a life etc are some examples. Everyone has different opinions on what the right thing to do is, for reasons mentioned above. Life is not a general sense, its specific to every person on this planet, and moral judgments are no exception. That being said, “my” answer is based on what I know, have experienced and have thought about….everything that has brought me to this moment. My answer is no, there are no defined rules pertaining to moral dilemmas, as there are no situations that are definite that fall under these rules. Some situations are very similar, and perhaps the same general rule can apply to some extent to both, in those cases. But to say that given rules can apply to all situations under them, to me is being quite arbitrary and general. Life is complicated, and needs similarly complicated moral judgments to accommodate it, and all of the situations that can occur within it. Imagine you’re in WW2, hiding in an attic with your newborn baby, and 20 neighbors. The Nazis are heard walking through the house, and you know if discovered, they’ll kill all of you. Your baby suddenly starts crying. Do you murder your baby to maintain the silence, or allow it to live and risk getting discovered? Murder is wrong, most people can maintain that viewpoint, but by killing your own baby, you could very well save everyone else hiding with you. Not an easy dilemma is it. This is just one example, I could come up with 1000’s more. If that’s not bad enough, there are twists on this question that go even deeper, depending on how people answer it. The point is, the answers depend on the details, and our morals are not exempt from this. In the end, morals have to come from us, based on what we know, and regardless of the outcome, if we acted with the best of intent, based on what we know at the time, what more can we expect of ourselves? Society has to establish general morale laws, but lawyers and judges know full well, every situation is unique, and that’s why the law has more books than a library.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Excellent question. I’ve often thought of this exact one myself many times. The answers to me seem vague, yet grounded at the same time. And I hope it’s not to justify my own standpoint. I tried to remain as logical as possible. In a nutshell yes, we all have to maintain a certain level of faith in everything life allows us to see. To me science and religion both require a certain level of faith, but the question is, which one requires more? My answer is religion, and here is my main reason. Yes, as you said science does present itself in a far more concrete form to many people, and I’m no exception to this realization. But, and it’s a big but…science, even though presented to us in ways that are similar to religion, (through other people who apparently know more about it than us, using television, books, internet face to face dialog etc) can and has been duplicated all over the world with the exact same results across the experimental spectrum. The debate comes from interpreting those results, and what exactly they mean to us. Again, that’s a result of who we are, and factors affecting our perception as individuals. Religion has not been duplicated on a level that even remotely approaches science. If your born in India, you’ll most certainly adopt the ideologies of their society, and the same applies to any other region including western society. This is not always the case, as some people have abandoned their religious upbringing, and sometimes even adopt another one in its place. This occurs for various reasons, but sometimes it’s simply due to the fact that the person eventually realizes their religion makes no sense to them, or has too many unanswered or unsatisfactory answers in their opinion. The point is, science answers the same questions universally regardless of where the experiment is conducted, and if the outcomes do vary, we’ve identified the reasons why, not the least of which is poor experimental practices to begin with. For this main reason, I have “more” faith in science, than religion, and feel completely justified in my view because of that. So my trust in science is based on both science and faith, as I can recall conducting experiments in grade 8, and seeing the outcomes myself. The intent behind both science and religion establish the foundation for how much faith is needed to adopt either one. The intent of science is to find answers, the intent of religion is to provide them, and there lies the difference that separates them in my eyes. One of them tells me what to think, and the other one tells me how to think. To summarize, I believe in science “more” than I believe in religion, even though science can’t be adopted without a certain level of faith.
But, I can’t answer any of your proposed questions about evolution, no more than any religious person can answer specific questions about the bible, as few have actually read it cover to cover. I don’t feel the need to know everything about something to formulate an opinion on it. It may not at all be accurate, but it’s based on what I know. Am I ignorant, absolutely without a doubt, but the more I read, and research, the more I modify my opinion and beliefs, which always point further away from religion than previously. It’s not my intended path, just the way it’s going for now based on everything I’ve been exposed to. My Atheistic undertones have nothing to do with evolution vs creation, as none of us know the answers to those questions.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
Does it matter? They’ve all impacted society in ways that are nothing short of amazing, good and bad. I think it’s quite safe to say all originated from man, one way or another. Whether they all same from evolution, or god handed us these gifts down from the clouds is something we have no way of knowing at this point.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
It would floor me, to say the least. But just because I wouldn’t be able to explain it on the spot, doesn’t mean at some point in my life I wouldn’t be able to, at least to my satisfaction. I don’t just depend on science to provide logical answers to life’s questions, but as history has demonstrated repeatedly, science will always attempt to answer, even though it (at the time) cannot. Perhaps it’s just a lack of technology that prohibits us from conducting the proper tests? Or theories that depend on undiscovered variables? That’s what science is about. If people have genetic physical capabilities that are above the rest of us, why not mental capabilities as well? I believe it occurred as you say it did, and I for one do not have an answer as to how it occurred, but it’s intriguing isn’t it? If we could answer every question in life, what would be the point in living? Perhaps science will get to the point where it can provide us the answers to spiritual question, but not yet.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
In this context, I don’t think so. You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, and I can’t see a way we’ll ever be able to. It’s no more logical to say it doesn’t exist until you see it, then it is to say it exists even though you have not seen it (all things being equal). Just because god hasn’t presented himself (herself, or itself) to us, doesn’t mean he never will. What’s the rush, right? Again, in this context, I have far more reason not to believe, than to believe…as a direct result of his absence.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
Speaking for myself, it offers me opportunity in many forms I just simply could not explore with an open mind otherwise. Has it improved my life? I can’t answer that, as I’m only aware of the timeline in which I’ve lived. To say yes or no would be a complete guess. I think the atheist position offers different things for different people. I somewhat agree with your statement of Christianity causing people to do horrendous things in our past, but ultimately people within Christianity are the ones committing these evil acts, not Christianity itself, at least not entirely. Blaming anything outside ourselves for our actions is a cop out on so many levels. Of course everything influences us, some more than others, but we have to be accountable for ourselves in the end. Had these Christians not been Christians, they may have found another outlet in which to implement their bad tendencies on others around them. Maybe not. But to say Christianity was itself exclusively responsible for their actions, isn’t correct or fair. Science is starting to see what causes people to act the way they do, and there are so many factors, to pin it on one is just not an intelligent analysis. And if you truly believe the good outweighs the bad, just ask anyone who was burned alive as a result of everything that occurred.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
You’re correct, as I don’t see how you can use logic to explain illogical things. Or maybe that’s the very reason we can? Anyways, referring to my earlier answer, logic suggests to me to not believe until I have a reason to do so. Believing in something because someone, or everyone else around you does, is not a reason for me to adopt the same belief system as those around me. So far, I have no reason to believe. I look around and see death and suffering everywhere. Uncertainty, famine, rape, murder, disease and other unthinkable conditions force me to really consider what kind of God are we supposed to worship? Either he’s cruel or negligent, which is it. Either way I want no part of it. There are no “facts” within religion itself, there are only facts on the results of religion. Everything religion speaks of is no more provable than purple unicorns with dragon wings. I read stories of pure fiction to my 3 year old daughter, and to me the bible is no more true than these stories, and just as amusing, but far more violent. Using logic to debate religion is not as clear cut as people think, but I still feel comfortable using it not to argue the opposite of what religion has to offer, but to counter with known facts that we have witnessed and discovered through science and critical thinking. Things we have proven time and time again, and if new evidence is discovered, its incorporated into what we know, reevaluated, and changed accordingly. Religion doesn’t respond too well to new discoveries as well as science has been able to do. It’s the year 2011, and there are still people out there that think gay is a choice, marriage is only between a man and a woman, the earth got flooded and a large boat with two of every species actually existed, the sea actually parted, burning bushes could talk, and on and on….we don’t need logic to dismiss these notions, common sense can take care of that.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
People who take the bible literally, have absolutely no respect from me, but those that take it for the word of god, and use it as a way (at least the good things) to live, definitely have a better head on their shoulders in my opinion. If you take it as something that can be used to spread good and moral values, then power to you. I would have far less bad to say about it, as it’s not how its written, it’s how people use it. But in reality, many people take it literally, and that’s not a beneficial way to use it.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It isn’t. All I wish for everyone is not to have their belief system forced upon them at a young age, or to misinterpret their own opinion for that which has been shoved down their throats from birth. I’ve met many religious people that are more open minded than some Atheists I’ve met. It greatly depends on the person. But when you’re taught who to hate before you even know what hate means. That bothers me. And it’s not just Religious doctrine that can do this, I realize that. I want everyone to have an open mind, if you’re an Atheist, read the bible before you comment on it, and if you’re Religious, read books on evolution, science and Atheism. Have an open mind, research and don’t be afraid to modify your opinion, as the ultimate truth is more important than your opinion of it.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
Yes, I believe in the “possibility” more so than god. And here’s why. I can say I don’t believe in anything until I see it, and I have. But let’s consider what we’ve seen so far. There are nine planets we know of in our solar system, and one of them (earth) has life on it. So out of all the planets we know about, that’s an 11 percent chance of life. And its proven, based on what we know. Yes, mathematically the chances of life out there are actually quite high, but that in the end holds little water in the real world. It’s an interesting statistic, but for now that’s all it is. God has left no evidence of his existence, whereas extra- terrestrial or ufo’s, has at least provided countless photos, witness testimony from very well respected military personnel, air traffic controllers, gov’t officials, and even the governor of Arizona after he was out of office. Even though its not much, it can’t be completely ignored either. Even though there is very little evidence of extra-terrestrials, there is still far more than the existence of god in my eyes. One is seen at times, but not proven, the other is never even seen, or proven. Comparing apples to apples, it’s a no brainer. I would like nothing more than both to be true, but again, cannot put them on the same level due to the content behind each belief. It is not fair to say just because you don’t believe in one you can’t believe in the other. There are far too many factors that differentiate these two topics.
Thanks for the discussion. I would just add that one thing that makes modern humans physically different than other primates and animals is a precision grip. The ability to manipulate tools precisely such as a pencil.
@Student4Life1975 – 10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials: “And its proven, based on what we know.”
The use of your second phrase negates the absolutism of the first phrase. You are claiming that something is “proven” based on what we NOW know. Using the same line of reasoning, the world was once “proven to be flat” based on what the people of the time “knew”. Since that was confirmed to be wrong by *ABSOLUTE OBSERVATION* (the ONLY way to proof something), we can assume the probability that what we NOW KNOW is also insufficient.
—
“God has left no evidence of his existence, whereas extra- terrestrial or ufo’s, has at least provided countless photos…” – There’s a HUGE difference between Extraterrestrials and UFOs. There are UFOs every day – there has NEVER been an Extraterrestrial.
And God has left plenty evidence of His existence – the planet you’re standing on and the life you inhabit are two of the biggest. Oh, but that’s not proof for you? Well, neither are photos of beads scotch-taped to a window and subsequently photographed proof of Extraterrestrials. Nor are “photographs” of some burned humanoid looking pile of material.
Same argument. You just can’t see it from your position.
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I am a relativist. This is not only because it is impossible to have the same morals as every other person on the planet, but also because every person will choose for themselves what is moral even if their culture or “god” tells them what is right and wrong. It has always, and will always be up to the individual. Many will tell you that it is the society that dictates the morals of the people within it, but these are just common morals in which the majority believes in. We as a society say that things are “bad,” but this is only because they are said to be bad within the moral construct of the society in which we were raised. My father is a man who believes in absolute morality, and he believes that the one thing that dictates whether or not a decision is right or wrong is the fundamental human moral “be nice.” And yet people are mean, because they have asked the question “why be nice?” And the answer to that is: I don’t have to be, because I can create my own morals. Gods (The creations of humans that answered all of the questions without asking themselves “why?”) have told humans to be nice to one another, but this is only because it would be ideal for no one to be mean. We would like that world to be a reality, so we wrote down stories in a book. Many of us thought about the questions that the book “answered” before, and because we couldn’t conjure up a story good enough to answer them for ourselves, WE BELIEVED the book. Not everyone thinks alike, in fact, no one thinks alike. And this is the reason why I am answering these questions, why I read this article, and the reason for which we have so many different religions to conform to.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Granted, no one knows everything. And therefore, most of what I know about the creation of our universe and the dinosaurs is all faith that the bright individuals working in labs have done their jobs. But I never believe anyone without factual support, and this is because nothing that we (ourselves) have experienced that cannot be reproduced can truly be factual. All that I observe for myself and understand in everyday situations leads me to the conclusion that we are here on this planet as the product of millions of years of evolution, innovation, and creativity, and not because some all-powerful force has a plan for all of us. Evidence is everywhere for evolution, and yet there is no evidence supporting the existence of what people love to preach about, and how none of us would be here without it.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
They come from synaptic electrical signals sent all throughout what we call the brain. Sorry, that was a tad bit condescending. My point is that after years of evolution the human mind began to think of things greater than themselves. They started to think “why” instead of always asking “how”. Once the human species finally started to figure out how to live comfortably after always asking, “how will I eat?” “How will I survive?” “How will I make shelter?” They started asking themselves “Why do I eat?” “Why do I need shelter” “Why am I here?” These kinds of questions led to creativity, and the need for an answer. Humans are curious creatures; we want to learn. Once we can no longer learn, we start making things up to fill the gap of information that is unknown. Then came the big question “Why am I here?”… It is unknown; I guess I will just make something up to satisfy my burning desire to know the truth. “There must be a man up there guiding me. He has purpose for me on this Earth. I believe he will guide me safely. I believe (because it makes me happy, and motivates me)” says the caveman.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
Well first off, because of my answer to your question #2, I must refuse to accept your story as factual, but I will play along. It may be possible for some people to access the human collective. But these individuals are very rare, and modern day machines or scientists cannot explain it. It is a Jungian idea that there is a collective subconscious, and these types of individuals are the only “evidence” for this psychologist’s theory. If what I am saying is possibly true, then all humans should be able to access this collective if they are taught. I realize that any form of explanation for these types of occurrences is ridiculous, and will continue to be until it is proven by science and medicine. But until I encounter a surreal entity like the one you speak of, I will refuse to believe these kinds of stories.
5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
Of course not, but there is proof for the absence of god’s “stories”. Noah’s Arc… Where did that water go? Rebirth… That is impossible. Unless of course they had a method of freezing a man and then defrosting him, which is especially impossible if that man has died on a cross before he is frozen. Or possibly it could have been Ye Old Cloning machine. Ah yes, because that was only invented a few thousand years later, and can only work on sheep. Religion has been used for thousands of years as a ploy to earn money, and power. People will believe anything as long as you give them a reason to. Take Mormonism, or Scientology for example. Scientology is basically a comic book that people believe in. I am not trying to discredit your faith; I only ask that you not try to discredit my discrediting of the existence of a higher power. I know the good that religion brings to the world, but I just don’t understand why one must cancel out all other possibilities of thinking about the world around them by believing in what someone else suggests is truth. I am just a man who needs to think for himself, and will only believe in a higher power if I see the proof right before my very eyes. Even if right now a higher power communicated to me in some way and alerted me to its presence (it didn’t), I would still go straight to a shrink to check myself for signs of schizophrenia.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
I hate words. Atheism is such a hated word, and agnostic people are often labeled as cowards. Both words are horrible, and this is why whenever someone asks me what I am I always respond “An Atheistic Agnostic.” This then labels me as two horrible words, which somehow makes a good word. I am also in a strange position, because I BELIEVE (Also a terrible word) that there is no god or higher power, but I also realize that it is ridiculous to say that there isn’t a god. So I do have a faith, and this faith is the faith in the inexistence of what people have faith in. The atheistic religious standpoint allows you to be truly free of other people’s beliefs. Not that Agnostic people, or Religious people don’t have this freedom as well, they very much do. It just takes more strength to come up with your own beliefs when you have someone else’s shoved down your throat as a child. Being Atheistic Agnostic has only improved my life because I now need only believe myself. After all, I am the only person I can trust…Factually. It may not improve everyone’s life, some people are too lazy to think for themselves, some can’t handle the truth, and some just prefer not to think of the question “WHY?”
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
I do not use logic to conclude facts about religion, because religion is not logical. Religion is magical, and simple. I have never really been in a debate about whether or not god is real, because it is impossible to prove that “it” doesn’t exist, and even more impossible to prove that “it” does exit. In the end the argument will always come down to “He does exist!” “No he doesn’t!” and both people will continue believing whatever it is that they believe or don’t believe. I believe that there is no higher power or “god” because there seems to be no reason for there even being life anywhere in the universe. We are just lucky that we were matter that gained consciousness. The universe is so incredibly random, that no one can even comprehend its massiveness. It constantly expands, and there is no reason for it, it just happens, and we should be glad that we are a part of it.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
I would say, “That’s great. I’m glad that you believe in fairytales, but the grownups in this world think that your stories are stupid, and childish.” To put this in the words of a college hipster “Your beliefs are just way too mainstream mann.” Hipsters hate mainstream anything, so they dig down deep for the underground music, this takes effort and time. Just like to truly call yourself “your own person,” you have to dig deep and ask yourself what you truly believe. This may take a little brainpower and time, but in the end you will have found your own personal religious vibe that you can be proud of and play through your obnoxiously large headphones everyday for the rest of your life.
9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It is most certainly not important to me that anyone is atheist, for that is the very reason that I truly hate to concept of religion. It has always been important to each religious sect that everyone believes in their gods and their morals. People go around preaching for others to join them in prayer with their god. Just as Atheists go around preaching about the non-existence of a higher being. They are both the same, and it annoys me to the point at which I would rather not be affiliated with any word that even implies a belief or disbelief in anything at all. What is important is for people to just simply let others believe in what they believe. Continue believing in whatever you believe or disbelieve, and ignore those who wish to make you believe or disbelieve in what they do. In fact, it is a very good thing that not everyone is atheist or a non-believer. For that just means that there are less of us non-believer assholes out there, it is always good to be a minority…they get into college easier.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
To me this question is completely ridiculous. It is shameful to not believe that there are life forms on other planets. The odds are irrefutable; there are billions of planets out there that host life. FACT. We may not be able to see them with the faint eye of the human race. But they exist, and even though it may seem impossible to us for anything to travel across the galaxy, does not mean that some other race of intelligent conscious matter hasn’t figured out space travel. It is also fact that the closest star to Earth other than our sun is four light years away. That means that anything that we look at in the sky is at least 4 years old. Which means that none of those stars may actually exist by tomorrow. We technically have no visual proof of the existence of anything out in space that is farther than our solar system. But then we could say that at one point or another there was life in our galaxy. That intelligent life, trillions of billions of miles away, has also asked itself these questions, and may have even found an answer. Until we find proof of anything no one should have a religion or a disbelief in god. I realize this is incredibly hypocritical, but it is the truth. The proof for extra terrestrial visits is out there. It is in early human art, there have been godlike drawings of men with masks on, and weird flying objects. These early humans worshipped these strange beings, and called them gods. Which would prove the existence of “god” after all. I would then gladly tell every theist that I know that they are right in believing in a higher power because THEY do exist. Just so long as they acknowledge that they have been praying to a race of hyper intelligent extra terrestrials for their entire lives.
I just have a a couple of very simple questions. Let’s say hypothetically that each family (however anyone wishes to label that) has two children say from today to, well let’s just go back 100k years. Allowing of course for war, disease, and other factors. I’m not an experts but seems to me that if we have been around for as long as so called “science” claims then, there are not currently enough humans walking the planet.
So, my questions are; where are all the humans?? And, furthermore; where is the fossel record of human’s existance just for the hypothetical 100k years?
I’m just a dumb carpenter so, I will leave it to all you highly intellegent experts to answer my questions. The numbers just don’t add up, even for a dumb carpenter.
Thanks
1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
Morality is just a series of unofficial rules people set up to ensure the continuation of their species. There is no absolute moral assessment that can be excluded from the confines of a particular animal’s instinctual wants and needs.
2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
My scientific knowledge is based on science.
3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
These are all symbolic forms of expression meant to convey some form of information or emotion, or a combination of both. Many animals do the same thing and behave in behavior that is unexplainable to them. The same is true for us – we look up to a Supreme Being as a way of providing leadership and guidance in the absence of noteable human presence.
4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
I would assume they knew someone close to me. It could happen. Why assume it was someone with prophetic powers? There’s more people out that who know random information about people who don’t know them, than people spilling out accurate prophecies that it would be impossible for them to know.
5. Is Absence of Proof, Proof of Absence?
No.
6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
It doesn’t offer anything itially. Over time, if you’re convicted with your beliefs, it makes it much easier to sort through the beliefs of various religions, whether you should accept them or reject them. It also gives you a better appreciation for science.
7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true?
You have to start somewhere. I start with the idea that god doesn’t exist.
8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
I would tell them that you can’t draw much objective information from a book that is entirely allegorical, so why believe in it?
9.Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
It isn’t. Self-righteous, bigoted, preachy theists do scare me a bit. Christians can be assholes to people who don’t share their views, and also to people who do. And then you have Islam.
10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
Yes, I just don’t think we’ve found them yet. But they are looking for habitable planets in the Universe and have came across some earth-sized ones in the “habitale” zone but nothing comparable to earth yet.
I think it’s great that atheists spend so much time trying to refute something that doesn’t exist. Also, everyone always goes to the money argument…in almost every post on here. The problem is that there are millions of people who go to a church every week where the pastors don’t take a salary, so where is the greed? Also, it’s. Always fun to hear that fresh argument,”if God really loved us he wouldn’t have let that bad thing happen.” Guess what, if we really wanted to, we could end ALL crime. I could have stopped 9/11. WE COULD STOP ALL MURDER IF WE WANTED TO. But at what cost?……..at the cost of freedom and free will. We believe(as shown by our actions) that freedom is more important than safety. We could prolong the human lifespan by 20 years if we regulated diet. So what does that say about you when you aren’t willing to do exactly what you demand of God?Of course you say that people should eat better but you would never actually make a law that would enforce that belief.
“1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?”
no atheists are most likely not relativists. for example i don’t think the wearing of the burka is conducive to happiness for women. sam harris makes the most sense here. morality is essentially scientific. just because it is very different to quantify scientifically it doesn’t make it a religious question. when you accept that the aim for humans is well being then you look to have a system whereby society looks to increase this for itself. the example of the 5 gang rapists raping a woman doesn’t follow because a society that allows gang rape at the expense of the minority will be unstable, people will live in fear.
“2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?”
i lolled when i read this. there is a crucial difference to a priest and a scientist. a priest makes claims he has no idea about. he may tell somebody that ‘god loves you’ which he cannot possibly know. the evidence for god is essentially non-existent which makes this claim based on faith and not good, hard, demonstrable proof. a scientist is open minded and will go where ever the evidence leads. good scientist attempt to falsify there own claims and when they fail it can lead to a robust theory. the predictive element is important. science has a proven track record of success. they have given us the haber process and water treatment which has literally saved billions of lives. modern medicine, computers, cars, mobile phones and many other devices that enrich our lives. its theories are often judged on their predictive qualities. i.e. predicting the weather can lead to evacuating an area before a hurricane, saving lives. what has religion done to this effect. i trust science based on the fact their track record demonstrates success. my trust in science is based on expectations based on evidence.
“3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?”
well given that most people in the history of mankind have been religious it’s no surprise religion has had a monopoly on art. human talent is a matter of genetics and conditioning which could lead to art. i don’t doubt that some people may find inspiration through religion but it doesn’t make religion any more true. how many people have written songs about women or men that they love? that’s not religion. much art comes from emotion and i think people can find many sources for this, and i grant religion may be one. but just as easily a person could be inspired by natural beauty
“5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?”
another lol. why is there any reason to believe anything for which there is no evidence for. the list is infinite of mythical things that can’t be disproved spaghetti monsters, bigfoot, fairies, pixies, leprechauns etc. it is not fair to say categorically that there is no god as we cannot absolutely know but in practical and useful terms there is no reason to believe it. just think why you don’t believe in unicorns or any other dead god for that matter
“6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?”
the truth might well have nothing to offer people in the way of hope. ignorant people think there should be some kind of cosmic justice. however an understanding of the natural world is a beautiful thing. the cosmos is absolutely fascinating and far more beautiful than any myth. it has improved my life in the sense that i am more knowledgeable and i find something quite beautiful about the fact that we are the universe beginning to know itself. when improving lives just ask about how scientific processes have helped improve peoples lives i.e. haber, water treatment and medicine. and think about how catholics think that aids is bad but condoms are worse. this kills many people and doesn’t allow women freedom to birth control
“7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.”
this is exactly what the religious do. the scientist is only interested in evidence. he starts with evidence and bases conclusions on this. he doesn’t start with lets say ‘evolution’ and then look for characteristics to fit this. he notices variation and then hyothesises and since the fossil record has meant it has become a robust theory. my answer to 5 answers this as well
“8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?”
why would god come to earth and speak in vague allegorical terms. if it is the actual truth about the universe why could he not speak in actual terms. it also wouldn’t change the fact we know nothing about the people who wrote the bible, whilst it also contains forgeries. there isn’t one sentence uttered in the bible that couldn’t have been written by a scribe 2000 years ago. there is no evidence that they were more learned that the people of that time were. the fact that christians can’t agree is further evidence that religion is man made. surely an all knowing god would’ve known when he wrote it that different people would interpret it differently which makes him kind of stupid. didn’t exactly make it clear to everyone!”
“9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?”
it’s important for people to know the truth. people’s faith can lead to dangerous behaviour. religion is holding back gay rights, it’s holding back stem cell research, abortion and contraception. and of course that’s not even the fundamentalists. remember faith drives people to fly planes into buildings not to mention suicide bombers and people like joseph kony to enslave children
“10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?”
another big lol. there is more evidence for et’s than for god. this is based on the fact we know there are between 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy and many many more in the universe. judging by the amount of solar systems with planets in the so-called goldy locks zone shows there is far more chance of there being aliens than god.
Thank you for your very interesting post. I shant bore you with a long post of my answers, I think everyone else has got that covered pretty well, but I would like to pick up on a couple of mistakes you may have made. It seems that you believe that Atheism and evolution (believers) are the same thing, they are of course not, you also seem to think that the opposite of Atheism is Christianity, yet again, when stated this clearly it is obviously not.
I’m developing a site site and I was thinking of altering the template.Yours looks pretty decent! You could visit my website and tell me your viewpoint!
Could you publish the tapes of the psychic on this site? Perhaps others in the lower 95% could hear something you don’t.
[...] [...]
These questions seem like they’re coming from a trollish blood drinker.
Your last question shows your ignorance of the atheist position, if any could be said to exist, and of reason and logic in general. There is no evidence that UFO’s are indeed intelligent extraterrestrials, and there are no documented sources of life some place else other than earth. However, there is reason to believe that life has/will exist(ed) someplace else: knowing that there are planets with similar environmental conditions has the early earth, the odds of life appearing someplace else are quite good. This does not mean that I KNOW there’s life someplace else; it only means I have justification for a belief that life probably does exist someplace else.
Even if I did believe that ETs visited earth, I would still have 2 things religious people do not: 1) an actual identifiable manifestation such as a crash site and 2) falsification, meaning each siting could potentially be proven to be something else. Sure, people who believe in UFOs will continue to believe even if 99% of all cases are proved to be something else, but the potential is still there. Religious people have not a single justification that could convince someone who does not already agree with them, and most importantly, they do not even have a manifestation to identify as god.
I don’t know if I should even post or not since I am not a scientist or know much of all this complicated stuff you are all arguing about. Answers are simpler than all this. God exists. If you are an atheist, you can sit in your computer and for the next 50 years argue that God is not real and You would be wasting you time. You can never prove to someone who has been healed by prayer that He is not real. I believe in God and will not be able to convince atheists either becasue they can’t smell God, see God, feel God and put Him in any of their physical scenarios. It is an individual choice to either believe that something superior than us created everything that we cannot even understand ourselves, or believe that we are the all knowing humans that don’t need any hep from an outside source. Humans who can’t even cure simple diseases and all we do is kill eachother for greed. Science looks at DNA, Carbon samling, phisical evidence to give us answers but who created DNA????? Who created plants and animals and humans??? The or somehting life that they can not handle, beleiving in a superior being that will be there in the end is a way to become stronger and have something to look forwardwind blew and everything came together????? I don’t think so. The greatest scientists of our time where not athiests.