Odysseus posted a link to a youtube vid in Debait. For reference:
[19:49:12] <Odysseus_555> 5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYe_V2hOZ4&feature=fvw .It's opening premise is flawed, and throughout the presentation there are many additional qualifiers designed(<g>) to make it difficult to respond,however, I chose to answer the questions since these sort of vids are commonly posted(I do it as well), the difference being is that anything I post I'm always open to discussing.Just say something.
I could just supply the definition of atheism and leave it at that.Since atheism isn't about evolution etc...being atheist specifically means we see no reason or proof to maintain a belief based on faith in the notion of god(s) for anything.
Anyway,
Question one: Does an atheist use "chance" in the same way a theist uses the notion of "god of the gaps?
No, at one time in history theists used "
god of the gap",the mindset being that anything unexplainable or mysterious was attributed to"god"...no difference? There is a
big difference.
As science (a discipline unattached to religious philosophy or mindset) has progressed, the discoveries made by science have slowly but surely transformed that "
god of the gap", into a "god of the GAPS" entertained by the theist (this is non-god specific).Keep in mind an atheist didn't create science.Humans approach unknown phenomena or data and applying reason, logic and intellect,using a very specific methodology, have discovered there is "
Knowledge of the Gap". That gap used to be attributed to gods.By applying the scientific method, mankind has begun to fill up the gap credited to god.I'd add that theist's benefit from the knowledge too.I think the issue raised speaks more to the scientist, and I've never read, seen or heard a scientist declare "I don't know what was the cause of this observed phenomena!CHANCE DID IT!". A scientist doesn't make an announcement of what something is or isn't until there is a definitive theory or data, reproducible, and accessible by those within respective fields , that can be understood and replicated.A religious inclination or lack of... has nothing to do with it. Atheists make use of the same data the society at large does.An atheist doesn't have a monopoly on that.This also tries to tie in Abiogenesis with the notion of chance...oh yeah..LOOK
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/rna/ one more chunk of the god of the gap closer to being filled. (not many left..)
Knowledge and use of the mind is something that the theist can access too.
Not just the scientist, atheist, or freethinker.To think so is just not very intelligent in my opinion.
Question two: Why should there be something,- instead of nothing?
Right off the bat ,this question isn't really the question asked. The question the person goes on to ask is how an atheist thinks why we are here as opposed to being
not here.This question is designed so god people can go "Yeah!, answer that!"
This is a game of semantics.First, the fallacy of "non-sequitur" & "false dichotomy" is posed, ie: It's expected that If the theory held by one side (with no proof "half truth " fallacy) isn't accepted, then that same side
also supplies the alternative to what you must defend (non sequitur). Additionally, disallowing any other explanations or theory that falls somewhere in between(false dichotomy..either/or) The question is posed in a manner that doesn't allow a response outside of the conditions supplied.I'll be blunt,supply the proof of god(s)being the originator of everything,and nothing(where the god existed before creating).
Science may someday supply an answer, and if it does,it will be something that everyone can understand, independent of a religion. Science has a decent track record in identifying what things are and aren't.It's done well in the short time employed.
Being atheist doesn't attempt to answer the origins of the universe, and that I think is the biggest flaw in the way the question is presented.
It's the theist that claims to know beyond a doubt the origins of all.They just can't prove it.
Odysseus, if you would like to clarify or point out that you felt it said something different please do so.Before I submit something for scrutiny, I try to ensure it is based in a sound approach.
Question three: Where do you get your morals from?
This question was answered in the room:
[19:57:56] <GrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrWPN666> just a little bit on question 3, where do you get your morallity from?
Boss:
[19:58:14] <The_Art_Of_Insane_BÓÒbies'...872> from society
[19:58:27] <The_Art_Of_Insane_BÓÒbies'...872> social conformity.
Most definitely.
Grrr goes on to point out:
[19:58:37] <GrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrWPN666> you do know most of the worlds population don't actually use the bible True.
and,
[19:58:39] <The_Art_Of_Insane_BÓÒbies'...872> I wouldn't walk round with my tits hanging out if no one else did I think I'd like the UK.Alot.
[19:59:12] <Scar~Ritual000> two thirds of the world isn't christian. WOOHOO
Note: All within ten minutes of the link being posted.
[19:59:25] <GrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrWPN666> morality is older than judaisim It is.
Thank You Boss.Thank You Grrr.
In a nutshell, ten minutes and thirteen seconds later. The video is 7:58 in duration.
Our present day society has incorporated morals from various cultures from across the world.There is no single source.Many of those morals are evidenced in cultures in excess of 10,000 years ago (clothing ,burial customs,jewelry,living arrangements etc..).
This is found everywhere,there is no exclusivity.Areas of the earth weren't exposed to Abrahamic religion until around
600 yrs ago, and there are still some isolated areas that have never been exposed...Have you ever wondered how they made it (morally) thousands of years before European contact and presently with some South American tribes all this time?Until Abrahamic religion crossed oceans it was only known of in a very small area.
I'd add also that even within the bible and other religious manuals the evolution of moral expectations and "constraints"are exhibited.Without going into detail we're all aware of the skewed morals contained within those types of books. Within the NT it was obvious that the god in that story felt it was perfectly acceptable and moral to allow the murder of a person who was supposedly without reason to be executed(sinless), unless you can explain how the god can suspend obvious moral wrongdoing and even condone it by allowing an innocent person to be murdered and allow another to commit a wrongful murder.Don't forget OT instances where the god allowed his representative(s) to wipe out and eliminate children and others, as a side effect of another's action.I can supply specific instances within those stories(NT&OT).Just ask.
Question four: How did morals evolve?
This question makes the assumption, and specifies that morality is a part of evolution.It implies there is an end result or purpose of evolution, a destination if you will.
This is what the person states/claims in the link that is a part of atheism
and evolutionary theory,or anyone who doesn't believe as he does, and obviously can read our minds:
"There is something in us that is self consciously aware of the process of evolution that understands what the goal of evolution is-survival of our own species-and instructs us through our conscience to fulfill the optimal conditions for that survival".Ridiculous.It includes our consciousness & conscience as well? Supply any part of evolutionary theory that states this.. That statement was made up or imagined, and attributed to a group of people with no basis or proof.
I expect this. Believers of gods imagine all sorts of things that they think a god or person said, thinks, or meant.
Question five: Can nature generate complex organisms in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?
Sure, how about nylon eating bacteria?
http://quirkyquarks.com/blog/2009/10/27/nylon-bugs-god-since-1975/ Please provide scientific evidence proving the contrary.There are numerous other sources that explain in far more detail.
The components that the bacteria digest are very specific to nylon, and unless you think a god(what if it isn't your god?) during the creation of the earth decided we needed help
in the future disposing of nylon byproducts, I gotta say, why didn't the god help with world hunger...A cancer eating bacteria?...who knows, maybe there are natural deposits of nylon just waiting to be found.., and Nylonase has been waiting for us, to make nylon until we find the created nylon..erm..ore?Okay, bad joke.
This might be seen as a waste of time, I don't see it as such.I do consider it a waste of time to blindly accept anything for which there are no proofs, or, the only proof is a desire for it to be so.I don't expect a response.I responded because when I post a link, a statement, or any type of claim I don't expect to be believed on face value alone.
None of us can know everything(we can try,we
should try), what I find ridiculous is the claim that you don't have to or can't know everything, yet you do know with certainty that there is a god (that
does know) for which the only proof given is in the book written by man telling you "this is the proof". There is no other proof.
I've had fun anyway.I always do.
