YouTube: 5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

[Purple Rabbit]

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.