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.