5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

xbmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYe_V2hOZ4

the bit about future looking morality .. "how we ought to behave" troubled me, I'm not sure why?

Stercus Accidit

Once the first question was complete tripe, I knew we were dealing with another idiot.

Chance? Please, the ignorant cliché.

The thousands of ratings of 1 star say it all, I turned it off.

Osgoodisgood

The same nauseating drivel as ever.
Back to the bronze age for you my furry little friend.

5uspect

facepalm

CerebralCortex

Billy Ray Cyrus called. He wants his head back.

marko91

i couldnt even finish the video...thats just retarted did he skip science class in school:rolleyes:?...how could someone belive that god exists like come on! where is ur proof?(wheres your proof he doesnt?)oh shut up thats just stupid! if he exists why dont he give the world proof?;)

Sam Vimes

Where do I get my morality?

Satan, duhhhh :rolleyes:

I love how at one point he says "this is not a stupid question". Eh, yeah it is mate

That video is just annoying. He makes no sense. Found it hard to even watch!

5uspect

Sometimes I wonder.

Theists attack Atheists for not understanding. Being too simple minded with the idea of God. The idea of god is so much more than the old guy with the beard and we're impoverished for not opening our minds.

Then fools like this guy open their mouths...

TedB

Ye are being far too harsh. He brings up an excellent point about the 'moral basis' of a world without a supreme authority - where do morals come from? Why do we feel guilt?

These are not straight forward questions and answers by any means, but its just embaressing to see (Both) sides devalue the persuit of truth by nonsense based on slagging off these kind of presenters. Usually based on the way they talk...

Reminds me of a line a wise man came out with once, 'Even from the mouth of the most objectionable, mankind always has something worthwhile to say'

5uspect

TedB wrote: »

Ye are being far too harsh. He brings up an excellent point about the 'moral basis' of a world without a supreme authority - where do morals come from? Why do we feel guilt?

How's that an excellent point? Morality comes from our evolution, just like our sense of smell.

TedB

5uspect wrote: »

How's that an excellent point? Morality comes from our evolution, just like our sense of smell.

Thats a nice textbook answer mate. Well done.

5uspect

Huh? That the current scientific understanding. What more do you want?

Galvasean

How is it an excellent point when it has been proven that morality is a naturally evolved trait?

toiletduck

atheistic belief system

...and that's where I stop watching. Honestly better things to do (well wait for the bus to the pub...). What are the five? I assume it's the usual suspects.

Zillah

TedB wrote: »

Thats a nice textbook answer mate. Well done.

I bet you have a much better answer!

No really, tell us.

It's magic isn't it?

TedB

Zillah wrote: »

I bet you have a much better answer!

No really, tell us.

It's magic isn't it?

Yeah, its magic.

Seriously, like banging your head on a brick wall here.

Science is useless without philosophy. There is no scientific answer for each and every persons idiosyncracies, and their personal alterations to private morality. We run the risk of discounting the individual and the individual experience and substituting it with a vague and meaningless scientific generalisation.

Galvasean

TedB wrote: »

Seriously, like banging your head on a brick wall here.

I felt the same way when I read the rest of your post.

TedB wrote:

Science is useless without philosophy. There is no scientific answer for each and every persons idiosyncracies, and their personal alterations to private morality.

I'm pretty sure with a bit of research you will find there is a pretty good scientific theory for each and every one.

TedB wrote:

We run the risk of discounting the individual and the individual experience and substituting it with a vague and meaningless scientific generalisation.

Vague and meaningless? Sounds a lot more like philosophy than science.

TedB

And never the twain shall meet

Fremen

Galvasean wrote: »

How is it an excellent point when it has been proven that morality is a naturally evolved trait?

How do you account for different cultures having different morals then? This is an issue that the speaker doesn't address in his claim that there is an objective morality either.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when you say that it's a naturally evolved trait. Personally, I would argue that it's a cuturally acquired trait.

He brings up one very good point though. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't think this is question that can be answered from the standpoint of scientific reasoning. Really, the only answer an athiest can give to that question is "I don't know".

Gordon

Why MUST I answer these questions, this guy keeps trying to tell me what I MUST do. I don't MUST have to do anything, that's where I differ from him, I'd rather not be preached to, thanks.

Zillah

TedB wrote: »

Science is useless without philosophy. There is no scientific answer for each and every persons idiosyncracies, and their personal alterations to private morality. We run the risk of discounting the individual and the individual experience and substituting it with a vague and meaningless scientific generalisation.

There is a very solid argument for the evolutionary origin of morality. Yes of course every person is a delightful and unique snowflake, but you should not allow the fact that people are complicated trick you into thinking there is something mysterious or unknowable about them. You're essentially making an argument from ignorance, though you've yet to deign to actually make an argument rather than speak with vague contrariness. We know in general where our traits come from, but yes, working out all of the specific things influencing a given person can be very hard.

Zillah

Fremen wrote: »

He brings up one very good point though. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't think this is question that can be answered from the standpoint of scientific reasoning.

Right now this question can't be answered from any standpoint, but I guarantee you, if it ever is answered reliably, then it'll be from science.

Galvasean

Fremen wrote: »

How do you account for different cultures having different morals then? This is an issue that the speaker doesn't address in his claim that there is an objective morality either.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when you say that it's a naturally evolved trait. Personally, I would argue that it's a cuturally acquired trait.

Different cultures spring up in different places with different circumstances where different sets of morals would be advantageous. The cultures aquire their morals based on the lot that has been given to them.

Fremen

Gordon wrote: »

Why MUST I answer these questions, this guy keeps trying to tell me what I MUST do. I don't MUST have to do anything, that's where I differ from him, I'd rather not be preached to, thanks.

This is a byproduct of the success of the scientific method. It has answered so much that when it can't answer something, unscientific people hold it up as evidence that they're correct.

Fremen

Galvasean wrote: »

Different cultures spring up in different places with different circumstances where different sets of morals would be advantageous. The cultures aquire their morals based on the lot that has been given to them.

Sure, so it's learned behaviour. Where does the genetic element come in?

Man is most likely an innately social animal. Socialisation brings culture which brings morality, but to say that man is genetically moral is reaching a bit, if you ask me.

marko91

marko91 wrote: »

i couldnt even finish the video...thats just retarted did he skip science class in school:rolleyes:?...how could someone belive that god exists like come on! where is ur proof?(wheres your proof he doesnt?)oh shut up thats just stupid! if he exists why dont he give the world proof?;)

Ah, but then it wouldn't require faith, would it?

TedB wrote: »

Science is useless without philosophy. There is no scientific answer for each and every persons idiosyncracies, and their personal alterations to private morality.

How could you possibly know that there isn't a scientific explanation for every idiosyncrasy which a person possesses?

The scientific explanation -- assuming there is one/will be one, which I believe there to be -- is bound to be extremely complex, with a huge number of genetic, evolutionary and social factors and variables. Because the answer is dauntingly complex does not mean that it isn't a valid answer, or indeed that the answer doesn't exist.

We run the risk of discounting the individual and the individual experience and substituting it with a vague and meaningless scientific generalisation.

Science doesn't produce vague and meaningless generalisations.

If a scientific explanation somehow, to you, devalues what it's explaning, does that make the explanation any less valid? If feels like you're saying that a scientific explanation of morality, and a person's individual idiosyncrasies, is wrong because it destroys the uniqueness of the individual -- when infact it doesn't.

Besides, any scientific explanation of a person's mannerisms and idiosyncrasies wouldn't be vague; each person's individual case would be highly complex, incapable of being explaned with a vague and meaningless generalisation.

Fremen wrote: »

He brings up one very good point though. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't think this is question that can be answered from the standpoint of scientific reasoning. Really, the only answer an athiest can give to that question is "I don't know".

Well, the only answer is that nobody knows.

I'd say that perhaps it's a lot more uncommon and difficult for there to be nothing instead of something. We always think that it's unusual that there is something instead of nothing, perhaps that's a lot more probable than there being nothing.

The simple answer is that nobody knows, and probably, nobody will ever know.

Stercus Accidit

Fremen wrote: »

How do you account for different cultures having different morals then? This is an issue that the speaker doesn't address in his claim that there is an objective morality either.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when you say that it's a naturally evolved trait. Personally, I would argue that it's a cuturally acquired trait.

Morality can be empathy or social norms as to what morality is considered to be.

Example, you will feel bad for a fellow human in pain, you empathise with them, its an evolved trait, you will help one of you tribe to the benefit of you all.

Societies perceptions of 'morality' can vary greatly, murder, I would argue that is universally condemned stemming from evolved empathy. But, in some cultures, severing someones hand is moral or flogging a rape victim is the moral thing to do. Consensual sex is immoral outside of marriage according to some backwards cultures.


All the good morals come from empathy, evolved base social skills, all the bad ones come from society, and often hand in hand with some religious doctrine.

yaaaboy

absolute codswallop, heard it all before the usual nonsense...

i feel sorry for people like that but i dont really care what religous people believe in as thats their own choice (just hate it when they try and stuff their beliefs down my throat), i feel rather charmed that i am intelligent enough to make up my own mind and know i am what i am, atheists have powerful minds and many have to have the strength to un-learn what they were taught in school for the first 18 years of their lives.

I am in control of myself and my own thoughts and think that it is dangerous and against nature to offer yourself up to any higher beings thinking that a god is in control of you anad what you do.

Galvasean

Fremen wrote: »

Sure, so it's learned behaviour. Where does the genetic element come in?

Man is most likely an innately social animal. Socialisation brings culture which brings morality, but to say that man is genetically moral is reaching a bit, if you ask me.

Let's put it this way. If your genes make you more prone to acts of kindness, your contemporaries may respond well, increasing your chances to mate and send your 'kind genes' to the next generation.
eg: I'm nice to a lady friend and she let's me do the 'hee-hee hoo-hoo' with her and then we go on to have a baby with said 'kind genes'.
This genetically inherited kindness over generations would form the basis of morality.

Fremen

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Societies perceptions of 'morality' can vary greatly, murder, I would argue that is universally condoned stemming from evolved empathy.

I guess you meant condemned
I'm not sure this is true either. War is a fixture of human life, but it's not usually considered immoral, and people don't empathise with the other side. The death penalty is government-sanctioned murder (one interpretation of the word, anyway), but it's not considered immoral.

All the good morals come from empathy, evolved base social skills, all the bad ones come from society, and often hand in hand with some religious doctrine.

Is it really logically consistent to make moralistic judgements about morals?

At any rate, my only argument was that it's not entirely correct to state that morality has a genetic basis.

Galvasean

Fremen wrote: »

War is a fixture of human life, but it's not usually considered immoral, and people don't empathise with the other side. The death penalty is government-sanctioned murder (one interpretation of the word, anyway), but it's not considered immoral.

I have to disagree here. I'd say the majority of people consider war immoral, while many consider the death penalty immoral (hence why many countries don't practice it).

Fremen wrote:

At any rate, my only argument was that it's not entirely correct to state that morality has a genetic basis.

Did you see my previous post? (we posted at the same time so you may have missed it)

Galvasean wrote: »

Let's put it this way. If your genes make you more prone to acts of kindness, your contemporaries may respond well, increasing your chances to mate and send your 'kind genes' to the next generation.
eg: I'm nice to a lady friend and she let's me do the 'hee-hee hoo-hoo' with her and then we go on to have a baby with said 'kind genes'.
This genetically inherited kindness over generations would form the basis of morality.

TedB

Zillah wrote: »

There is a very solid argument for the evolutionary origin of morality. Yes of course every person is a delightful and unique snowflake, but you should not allow the fact that people are complicated trick you into thinking there is something mysterious or unknowable about them. You're essentially making an argument from ignorance, though you've yet to deign to actually make an argument rather than speak with vague contrariness. We know in general where our traits come from, but yes, working out all of the specific things influencing a given person can be very hard.

What I'm saying effectively is that both sides are boring and tend to overlook/devalue the essential building blocks of humanity. For example, questioning 'how' something works (IE, the mechanics of the human body) is vastly different to questioning 'why' it works (Why are we here? What is existence? What is consciousness?)

When I talk about scientific generalisations I'm talking about the text book 'faith' most atheists have in science. Its actually quite funny. Few of you can actually coherently explain the scientific process from which you base your existence, but you do rely on the written word of scientists presented in a scientific way.

This is correct of course, but I worry that even that assumption - ie, that having a faith in science is correct while having a faith in a higher power is not - underlies a certain arrogance and negation of what it means to be a human. In other words, people throw out scientific generalisations, such as that morality is an evolutionary construct, which doesn't specify what morality is or why different cultures and different individuals have such a hugely different morality base.

I'm an atheist by the way, but an atheist who is extremely aware of my ignorance, a natural result of my chosen state of consciousness. Science doesn't answer why I am here, it merely states that I am here and suggests multiple reasons for why.

Stercus Accidit

Fremen wrote: »

I guess you meant condemned
I'm not sure this is true either. War is a fixture of human life, but it's not usually considered immoral, and people don't empathise with the other side. The death penalty is government-sanctioned murder (one interpretation of the word, anyway), but it's not considered immoral.

War is usually justified to be necessary, defending ones rights or home, liberty.

Look at the WMD justifications for modern wars, and the condemnation they receive when it looks like its just to control oil resources.

War needs to be justified, a tyrant is considered immoral, I used a basic analogy that murder is condemned, it is, but war is a grey area, depends on its justification. I won't claim there is a hard and easy law of morality, religion might though.

Is it really logically consistent to make moralistic judgements about morals?

At any rate, my only argument was that it's not entirely correct to state that morality has a genetic basis.

It would be illogical to call it a fact, I should have put in the disclaimer in my opinion there. And you're right, modern morality can be based on empathy, social or religious norms. But we evolved this morality as a pack animal to begin with, experiments have been conducted with chimps to show their own empathy with their pack, and consideration for the needs of others.

fitz0

TedB wrote: »

What I'm saying effectively is that both sides are boring and tend to overlook/devalue the essential building blocks of humanity. For example, questioning 'how' something works (IE, the mechanics of the human body) is vastly different to questioning 'why' it works (Why are we here? What is existence? What is consciousness?)

Have you ever read or listened to Carl Sagan. I defy you to say that he ignores the "essential building blocks of humanity." He was as much a poet as a scientist imo, and had an amazing gift for really bringing the facts into perspective.

TedB wrote: »

This is correct of course, but I worry that even that assumption - ie, that having a faith in science is correct while having a faith in a higher power is not - underlies a certain arrogance and negation of what it means to be a human. In other words, people throw out scientific generalisations, such as that morality is an evolutionary construct, which doesn't specify what morality is or why different cultures and different individuals have such a hugely different morality base.

Faith in science is a very different thing than faith in a higher power. Faith in science can actually benefit us as an individual and a race. While faith in a higher power can have benefits, this is usually dependent on the "prophets" and clergy of the adherents religion. But thats neither here nor there, its a persons choice to follow a religion or not, just as its a persons choice to keep up to date with research in whatever field they take an interest in.

As for morality, that's a nasty topic to get into. And it's been done to death. Suffice to say that religious morality is just another form of group morality, just like tribalism. Doesn't mean it's the only morality out there, each person should find their own moral code to live by, not be told what is right and what is wrong by the mouthpieces of a god of highly dubious existence.

TedB wrote: »

I'm an atheist by the way, but an atheist who is extremely aware of my ignorance, a natural result of my chosen state of consciousness. Science doesn't answer why I am here, it merely states that I am here and suggests multiple reasons for why.

You say this, yet you seem to imply that most people on here are not aware of their ignorance? Excuse me if I've taken you up wrong, but you seem to be saying that science is worthless from an emotional perspective. I can't agree at all with that.

Is science not the ultimate awareness of one's own ignorance? I highly doubt there are many scientists or people with an interest in it that are not aware of just how little they know about the universe and everything in it. Science is our attempt to lessen that ignorance.

Also I don't get the whole question of why, why are we here, what is our purpose, etc, etc. I don't feel the need for a reason to be here, I'm just quite happy I am here. But that's just me.

Wacker

Gordon wrote: »

Why MUST I answer these questions, this guy keeps trying to tell me what I MUST do. I don't MUST have to do anything, that's where I differ from him, I'd rather not be preached to, thanks.

In fairness to the dude, I think his video is a reply to this one, which takes a similair tone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

TedB

Also I don't get the whole question of why, why are we here, what is our purpose, etc, etc. I don't feel the need for a reason to be here, I'm just quite happy I am here. But that's just me.

Thats probably where we differ on a philosophical level. I'm not talking about a reason coming from a higher authority, but I do understand that consciousness is an intensely individual experience. By and large what differentiates the human species from our animal cousins is the fact that we can communicate complex information to each other via language. What about the process our mind undergoes in order to determine what is real and what is not? That is the very depth of consciousness which continually gets lost in these debates.

Zillah

TedB wrote: »

What I'm saying effectively is that both sides are boring and tend to overlook/devalue the essential building blocks of humanity. For example, questioning 'how' something works (IE, the mechanics of the human body) is vastly different to questioning 'why' it works (Why are we here? What is existence? What is consciousness?)

The fact that you think science is boring is irrelevant. It deals with cold, dispassionate models of reality. If you want to indulge in thinking about the specialness of life and people then go to a Church or a humanist meeting, science isn't a way of life, it's a process. Whether you like the implications or not, science knows where morality comes from.

When I talk about scientific generalisations I'm talking about the text book 'faith' most atheists have in science. Its actually quite funny. Few of you can actually coherently explain the scientific process from which you base your existence, but you do rely on the written word of scientists presented in a scientific way.

- Faith is unevidenced belief. That is why it is a different word to simple belief.
- I do not have faith in science, I have belief in the effectiveness of science based on it's rational principles and proven track record.
- Conflating these two is bone headed stupidity.

Also I, and the vast majority of regular posters here, could explain to you in great detail the scientific process, the philosophy behind it, it's limitations and it's goals.

In other words, people throw out scientific generalisations, such as that morality is an evolutionary construct, which doesn't specify what morality is or why different cultures and different individuals have such a hugely different morality base.

How in the name of Zeus is the (correct) statement "Human morality is a result of evolution" a 'generalisation'?

And try talking to a sociologist, there's all sorts of reasons different cultures have different morality. I'll give you the simple explanation now though: Evolution has programmed us with a large set of general moral rules which are extremely flexible and modifiable. These are modified by our environment. Different environment, different expression of that morality. Sure we might have different views on marriage and criminal justice, but you'll tend to find certain inescapable trends such as "Don't stab your neighbour" and "burning down public buildings is bad".

Science doesn't answer why I am here, it merely states that I am here and suggests multiple reasons for why.

Science doesn't give a shit 'why' you are here and it never pretended to. Again, if you want special fuzzy wuzzy feelings go to a Church.

Zillah

I foolishly just subjected myself to the video in the original post. Such...idiocy. Ugh.

I think it's quite telling that everyone who disagrees with evolution is unable to correctly explain the theory of evolution.

Gordon

Fremen wrote: »

This is a byproduct of the success of the scientific method. It has answered so much that when it can't answer something, unscientific people hold it up as evidence that they're correct.

But then they're accepting the teachings of science to disprove science? Lunarcy!

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I think it's quite telling that everyone who disagrees with evolution is unable to correctly explain the theory of evolution.

A wise man once said "Familiarity breeds understanding." Of course he meant it in relation to racial tolerance, but it works well in relation to evolution too.

Soul Winner

Yeah but yous must admit that his joke about Descartes was funny

Overblood

TedB wrote: »

We run the risk of discounting the individual and the individual experience and substituting it with a vague and meaningless scientific generalisation.

Aww, is science de-humanizing you and turning you into a number? Please watch this short video now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

Yes that's right, Nazis the lot of ye.

Sam Vimes

Fremen wrote: »

How do you account for different cultures having different morals then? This is an issue that the speaker doesn't address in his claim that there is an objective morality either.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when you say that it's a naturally evolved trait. Personally, I would argue that it's a cuturally acquired trait.

Different cultures have different morals for pretty much the same reason as chinese people look different to black people. They evolved separately. There is a cultural aspect to it but a form of morality existed long before speech and what we would consider culture

Fremen wrote: »

He brings up one very good point though. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't think this is question that can be answered from the standpoint of scientific reasoning. Really, the only answer an athiest can give to that question is "I don't know".

You're absolutely right and the vast majority of people on this forum will give you exactly that answer. The difference between us and theists is that we're happy to wait until human beings are able to answer that question instead of taking wild stabs in the dark about what "must" have happened. Their conclusion of course being "I don't know so it must be God"

robindch

TedB wrote: »

Few of you can actually coherently explain the scientific process from which you base your existence, but you do rely on the written word of scientists presented in a scientific way.

I'd hazard a guess that probably all of the forum's regular posters here could define what the scientific process is accurately, and they can do it because they have either derived it or something similar themselves, or come across it, and have thought about it sufficiently long and hard to recognize its immense value.

I wouldn't imagine there's a single forum regular who's accepted the scientific method because some guy in a lab-coat told them to. In fact, the unquestioning and uncritical acceptance of the words of other people that's such a common feature of religious belief is exactly the opposite of the atmosphere of mutual challenge that the scientific method is based upon.

BTW, religious belief is by and large philosophically nonsensical, not scientifically nonsensical. Science, per se, has little or no input into most modern religions, since most have been continuously and consciously evolved by their client populations to remain observationally unverifiable.

And the religions which didn't evolve their beliefs away from the prying eyes of inquisitive people -- Zeus finally found not to be sitting on Mount Olympus for example -- simply died out. For this, an invisible god who lets people do what they want and only starts running their lives when they're dead and therefore incommunicado, is a truly masterful piece of invention.

Zombrex

TedB wrote: »

When I talk about scientific generalisations I'm talking about the text book 'faith' most atheists have in science. Its actually quite funny. Few of you can actually coherently explain the scientific process from which you base your existence, but you do rely on the written word of scientists presented in a scientific way.

As Robin said I think most regular posters here could explain the scientific method, but even if that wasn't the case what is wrong with repeating scientific understanding without claiming you understand the science that arrived at that conclusion.

How many people understand the actual maths behind the Big Bang? Or a black hole?

5uspect

Wicknight wrote: »

As Robin said I think most regular posters here could explain the scientific method, but even if that wasn't the case what is wrong with repeating scientific understanding without claiming you understand the science that arrived at that conclusion.

How many people understand the actual maths behind the Big Bang? Or a black hole?

Never mind Atheism, I don't understand a lot of the stuff in my own scientific field. I'm attempting to understand what parts of it I can but I'll never be able get to it all. In the mean time I'll quite happily take their word for it.

I don't rely on sciency sounding words or faith. I rely on their publications in peer reviewed Journals. Their predictions and their data are enough to show that while I often struggle to understand the maths the results are solid.

Sam Vimes

Exactly. When someone say that the universe was created by the christian god and offers as evidence an old story book I'll ask them for a bit more.

But when someone says, for example, that certain semiconductors can be doped with positively and negatively charged doping agents such as gallium arsenide, thereby creating a type of voltage controlled switch called a transistor and he offers as evidence the programmable microprocessor, I'm prepared to take his word that the maths is sound, because the results are evident.

Zombrex

Listened to the video. I'm probably going to be called an arrogant dismissive smug superior atheist for this but that guy is an idiot. :pac:

stevejazzx

Hmm Well he talks about 'gaps' first and that is fitting becasue the rest of the video is all gaps. The 5 questions any intelligent atheist should have to answer afterwards is to point out the 'gaps' in his undersatnding of evolution.

Flamed Diving

I think the crucial problem with this and any argument which is brought forward by the religious, is the false assumption that there is absolute morality.