5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYe_V2hOZ4&sns=fb

I want to know how you guys would debunk these 5 questions...

Haven't got time to watch the vid just yet but can I say that there are plenty more than 5 questions that every theist must answer.

1) Aren't you using chance in the exact same way in which you accuse christians?

Firstoff there is no rule that says that an atheist has to have any opinion on chance since atheism is the lack of belief in god(s), nothing more, nothing less. So your question is not really adressed to atheism but to science, thereby showing your inability to separate the two. Second if you reject the possibility of chance being a real aspect of nature alltogether, you are implicitly pleading for full causal determinism instead. A causal determinism that leaves no room for free will or independent agency of gods whatsoever.

Now about the more hidden aspect of your question, the bit about chance as a cop out from explanation "in the exact same way" as christians use god as a cop out of explanation. The big difference is that probabilistic concepts as part of scientific models are verified to excruciating detail in nature by doing experiments. Scientists in general don't like this aspect of nature at all and so have stressed themselves to circumvent the unavoidable conclusion that on several levels of our reality chance or contingency plays an important role. Another difference is that with the probability in place in the models a level of predictive and explanatory power has been achieved that has been unprecedented throughout human history.

2) why should there be something instead of nothing?

Good question! I fully confess I don't know and I am proud not to vein some shitty answer like "because of god". Because that's no answer at all. If you think otherwise tell me why should there be a god instead of nothing?

You might consider the mind boggling possibility that purpose is a manmade concept that might not be attributed at random to inanimate objects of reality or the universe as a whole. By applying that kind of antropomorphic idolatry you might have started yourself on the wrong foot.

3) Where do you get your morals from?

What about upbringing, interaction with other humans in society, experience, culture, the ability to think about consequences of future actions? Do you put that all aside for some magical fairy tale?

Please observe that your question is explicitly asking for a descriptive explanation. If you ask for an explanation of the prescriptive nature of morality all that is needed is the rather obvious notion that the prescriptive nature of morality hinges on the basic idea of reward and punishment as in its rude prehistoric goat peasant form "worship me or burn in hell". There is no magical intrinsic prescriptive power needed. IOW, there is no prescriptive power in the prescription itself.

4) How did morals evolve?

I'm glad that this question acknowledges the fact that morals are indeed changing over time. However it is a sad thing it also starts from the wrong assumption that evolution is a theory on moral. It isn't. You can ask for the scientific view on the origin of moral behaviour however. The current view is that any animal living in groups has to develop moral codes to guarantee group stability of some sort.

You also assert that moral behaviour is a uniquely human behaviour and that it cannot be found anywhere else in the animal kingdom. This plainly is a false statement. All primates display moral behaviour. It cannot be explained other than that a mechanism involving rules for behaviour, punishment and reward is in place. For bonobos and chimps this behaviour is quite extensive.

5) Can nature generate complex organisms, in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?

Suppose we have no clue at all, does that mean that therefore god, more specifcally your god, did it? That would be a god of the gaps, wouldn't it. Fact is that science has a massive amount of clues that all point in the direction that nature can do just that. To deny this, you need to deny the fossil record and the story it tells. Better still, the scientific model enables us to predict and explain a whole range of related phenomena in such a way that it overwhelmingly dwarfs the god-did-it alternative with its lack of any predictive power in a rather embarassing way.

What a fool, these questions have been answered satisfactorily ages ago.

Even more of a fool if he thinks we are stumped by them.

Question One: No. Atheists have no 'belief' in 'chance.' In fact, chance doesn't replace the role of god in an atheist's views of the world nor does it really have any greater place in an atheist's views of the world than any other informed person in the world. Atheism is not a belief system of any kind, rather a lack of faith in any religous views.

As a side note, I don't know what you think is 'Darwinism' but I'm reasonably certain it isn't actually a thing. You may be thinking of Evolution.

Question Two: The question is invalid. The presence of something over nothing doesn't require religion and the absence of anything doesn't mean religion doesn't exist. The two are independant of one another and there is an enormous portion of scientific thought concerning the variety of life on earth and humankind's existance (evolution) and the existance of matter (astronomy and physics). Matter exists because there is a slight disharmony in the creation of certain particles in relation to their anti-particles. When the big bang big banged, this disharmony allowed a very tiny portion of all the material that existed at the moment of the big bang to be carried over 13.7 billion years later to form all the matter that we see today and perhaps more beyond that. That does indeed mean the universe had a discernable beginning and one of a number of probable endings (the big rip, big crunch, or heat death).

As a side note, the existance of life on earth and our presence on it means nothing in respect to probability. We can't exist on a planet that wouldn't support the kind of life and ergo if this planet formed to be uninhabitable to our kind of life, we wouldn't know about it because life would have never have formed and humans would have never existed on Earth. The idea that because earth supports life means it was 'intelligently designed' because it seems improbable elsewhere is wholly invalid of a notion. No matter how probable or improbable life may or may not be, life will form only where life can form and no where else no matter how unlikely life can form. The idea that because life formed here means it requires an intelligent designer is wholly invalid a notion.

Question Three: I do not kill because murder is illegal and it isolates me from others and it forces them to see me as a threat. I do not steal from others for the same reason that I do not want others to steal from me. I do not cheat on my girlfriend for the reason that I do not want her to cheat on me. Moral behavior, such as that you describe it, is not required as you descsribe it. (More on this in question four).

Question Four: "Morals" such as that to which you call them, evolved because it is beneficial to individual members of the species and the species as a whole in evolutionary terms. Your entire arguement for questions three and four are invalid because of the assumption that a creator is required for morality. In any case, the traits that grant benefit tend to be easily passed from generation to generation. Think of the way you see piranahs, wolves, and lions working together but rarely against one another.
However, this is a very general notion about the general direction and attitude of a species. Humans and other primates are known for murdering one another on occasion but the entire species are generally known for their level of social interaction and co-operation. Instances to the contrary of a general notion doesn't necessarily disprove anything.

Side note: Evolution does not have a goal. It never has and never will. Individual creatures have a will to survive and pass on their genes. This drive to survive doesn't require knowledge of genetics, DNA, genes, or whatever.

Question Five: Yes, but your notion of intelligence and its effect and design is horrifically flawed. You reason that just because a creature is intelligent in a human sense, that it must do certain things or leave behind specific signs despite no evidence that this is a general characteristic of intelligence - even human intelligence. I don't fully understand your bullseye analogy. If it exists before you shoot the arrow, that doesn't imply anything other than it existed before you shot the arrow.

From your questions and reasoning, I can deduce that you've come to your questions and the conclusions you've reasoned based on fallicious logic.
For example, because the earth exists and life is improbable, the earth must have been desigend for life.
Because creatures can have social order, some outside force must be imposing morality.
Intelligence has, requires, or always possesses specific characterizations that humans can readily identify as such.
Life would require random chance to form without an intelligent designer.

Atheists who understand the science behind the concepts you cover do not fall under any of the above assumptions that make several of your reasonable questions as ill-informed as to which they are presented.

To answer your last question, the idea of atheism isn't a change of belief in one thing to something else, but the idea that you don't have to rely on belief to answer questions about the world around us and the life and beauty of existance to which we were all born into. As such, the only people who will ask you to believe anything are those who will try to sell you into another religious faith, but never the idea of atheism, as that is the absence of belief.

(July 18, 2010 at 4:16 am)Scott Richens Wrote: 5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer
See Video above

I want to know how you guys would debunk these 5 questions...

That is how I would debunk those questions. That was entertaining. Thank you.

Thanks guys - a great read!

This man has had a really sheltered upbringing if he thinks these are new questions.

He has access to the internet why doesnt he use it?

1) Aren't you using chance in the exact same way in which you accuse christians?
The odds of winning the powerball are 1 in 195,249,054

Now, assume 195,249,054 people each bought a ticket and no combination of numbers were duplicated. What are the chances that one of them will win?

2) why should there be something instead of nothing?
Why do you assume the default state is 'nothing'? How do you define 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'? On it's most basic level, we can demonstrate that if I were to take two canisters, one containing a vacuum and the other containing water, all other forces exerted on the canisters being equal, and create a join between them, the end result would not be the water remaining in one and the vacuum remaining in the other, but for the water to expand as much as it is capable until the amount of water is equally balanced between the containers. What does this experiment demonstrate in regards to your 'something' vs 'nothing' argument? Is there actually such a thing as 'nothing'?

3) Where do you get your morals from? & How did they evolve

Humankind is a social animal. We do not reproduce asexually. Thus, to survive, we have developed varying sets of rules to enable us to associate with each other. The most basic of these are what you call 'morals'. Additionally, there are additional sets of rules referred to as 'cultural norms' and 'etiquette'. Let us look at your basic chances for a date on Saturday night. If you ignore the rules of your local culture and violate etiquette, are your chances for that date very high? If you cannot get a date, what are your chances of adding to the gene pool? Now, assume that you did learn this lesson, found a mate, and now have children. Your child is now looking for a date on Saturday night. Would you advise your child to ignore the rules of local culture and etiquette, or encourage your child to follow the rules to better increase the chances? Morals, culture, and etiquette are all learned behavior.

5) Can nature generate complex organisms, in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?

Yes.

Sorry, that's all you get. If you have to ask the question, you do not have enough basic reasoning skills to understand the answer.

Once the dude said you must answer intuitively to something her targets at "Intelligent" atheist, my eyes rolled.

Intuition =/= intelligence in fact, intuition so often leads us wrongly. Many objective facts are very counter-intuitive.

Oh and fuck him for suggesting intelligent people must go to college.

Edit: Watching more of this, his "attitude" is rather smarmy. And by calling evolution Darwinism tells me all I ever need to know about this guy.

These questions can be easily debunked, and, to be honest, it's the belief that there IS a god which should be questioned.