The Antichristian Phenomenon
I will quote some things quickly and reply, not all of it.
“In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did it all come from?”
I am more interested in why this bugs people as a whole. I am a follower of the Big Bounce theory, just like db0. In such a case, one can argue there was no real beginning since it’s cyclical. It’s like watching a snake biting it’s own tail, you cannot tell where it begins and where it ends because they are interconnected. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really bug me at all that we cannot fully tell the creation of our universe. It is an interesting field of research but it will not change my life if we would find testifiable proof whether a creator exists or not.
“What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?”
Once again, I am fine with not knowing even though I know some people are working on it. I think there is a major difference in being “satisfied finding an answer” in any answer given than actually trying to find a REAL answer. Obviously most religious people belong to the former, scientists to the latter.
“What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these “languages of reality” to so elegantly describe and interact with it?”
Over time our brain simply developed to manage more abstractions; with that we could develop a better sense of logic and in addition to that mathematical skills, since both require abstract thinking. So at this point it’s all about evolution and humans being finely tuned as db0 said to just simply work this way, because it turned out it was the best method for us to survive in our current evironment (maybe too good, I should add).
“Do you deny objective morality; that the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is not just a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? If not, then how do you ground morality; how do you explain where it came from and why we ought to be moral tomorrow?”
I do, since your so called “objective morals” are all based within the society you happened to currently live in. So Muslims living in extremist Muslim parts of the world might consider an eye for an eye a better moral method while a second generation Muslim living in Sweden might be propagating for women’s rights and that it does not impede on their rights wearing a veil. A Westerner in general might shudder at the idea that we should cut off the hand who has committed theft, as clearly stated in the Quran, but lest not forget that there are quite a few atrocious comments within the Old Testament that Christians are equally good at denying (moral laws written in a society existing 2000 years ago), such as beating your children if they don’t obey their parents, moral laws that simply don’t fit into today’s modern humanitarian views. So no, objective morals do not exist, simply put, since all your moral stems stem from the society you live in.
“Skeptics often bring up the “problem of evil” as evidence against God, i.e., if there is a good and all-powerful God, then why is there evil in the world.
Do you think that this is a valid objection? If so, are you admitting that there is evil in the world? What is “evil,” and do you not admit its opposite: “good?”
The problem of evil objection only makes sense if such things as good and evil are objectively real, not just preference statements.”
Of course it’s a good counterargument since the Bible explicitly said that God is x of this, one including being omni-benevolent. If God then is all good, then there is a logical paradox if evil still exists, as originally outlined by Epicurus (I will not bother quoting since it’s probably overquoted as it is).
So then it basically rounds down to whether you believe evil exists at all, and it doesn’t. Referring back to the previous argumentation about objective morals, evil is very interconnected. 1500 years ago Catholic Romans found it very justifiable to treat pagans and heathens like trash; even their own slaves who may be fellow Christians. This is something most Christians today would still look upon as an evil act since the Bible speaks for turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor. So our very idea of what is evil has changed throughout history itself; it was once not an evil or immoral act to treat women badly but it is today, and now Christian women in particular are even speaking for the equality of the genders as proposed by the Bible, which is utter complete bullshit if someone has actually studied the issue a little bit further than the statements that “god loves everyone” (such as a woman being stoned to death if she is found to commit aldultery, yet the man in a similar situation “gets away with it”). It is evident there is a major difference in treatment between women and men both in the Old and the New Testament, and that women are in general of lesser worth, less spiritually pure, indirectly pointing to the cause of this “taint” lies in their monthly periods.
I don’t find it evil if a majority of the human race would be killed off, would you? The fact we may hold different moral views about this matter evidently speaks for that objective evil does not exist, and when you turn my argument against me and says that I am evil, you are very much projecting a subjective point of view, and your argument thus fails.
“Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is “suicide?” What values and purpose will you instill in your children? Will you be honest with them, or will you borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint?”
I don’t live for my own sake, I live for enjoyment, purely. If I don’t enjoy my life, of course suicide is the other option. I don’t have a reason at all for existing or living. I will live as long there is great food to eat, great friends to meet and what other physical or mental pleasure you can imagine. Yes, I live for pleasure, don’t we all? If we don’t enjoy our lives we generally don’t want to continue living. I will not instill any child with a purpose if I now would have children (at this point in my life I find it very doubtful), so the question itself is a non-issue. I will not direct, but I will be there as a GUIDE, when this person is looking for answers I will answer them in my way but still leave the question open. Better to keep up with the possibilities than rejecting the alternatives. Of course I will be honest; anything else is intellectual dishonest from my regard and if that happens I will shoot myself in the foot. When I was a kid my father indirectly encouraged me to study facts and the world itself and even at a young age I had a thirst for wisdom and I preferred watching a documentary about animals or nature over a cartoon movie. If anything, this is a mentality I hope to instill, that no answer is given until we search for one.
“Are you prepared to accept the idea that no one is really morally responsible for their bad behavior and, conversely, that virtuous behavior is not commendable? In what way will you seek to convince me that I am really not a conscious and self-aware being; that it is just a complex biochemical illusion? Can you accept that computer programs may one day be just as much “persons” as you, yourself?”
Of course I am, and many things which may be considered virtuous are for me despisable ideas of how to lead a human life. How about this person trying to present such an exeggerated ethos? What exactly would make you a better person because you happen to take care of a lot of kids? Nothing. It’s all just a silly cultural idea that taking care of children and in general being a caretaker makes you a better person, especially if you are a woman. As for you not being a self-aware and conscious being, that’s rediculous. What has it got to do with ideas of virtue vs bad behavior? Of course you are self-aware and conscious about your existence, or you wouldn’t ask that question to begin with. You already have your set of morals and ideas of what is being virtuous behavior and what isn’t. Some of it is instilled from our parents and other people from your environment, some of it is instilled by general culture by itself. I inherently believe that we can make personal choices, but the issue is rather whether you are willing to do so. As for AI, there’s still a long way to go. Maybe some day in the future we will have such a complex computer mechanism that allows it to behave just like a human, but we don’t today. I am open for the possibility but I find it pointless to talk about it before we are there.
“Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings. While some of these are certainly spurious or not
well documented, others have reasonable experimental support. In addition to this, humans seem to be incurably religious; the idea of God and the spiritual is deeply entrenched in the human psyche, if not in its actual experience.
What are we to make of all this? If man is simply an adapted biological organism, then how is it that we did not manage to adapt to our natural environment in this area – why are we not “naturalists” rather than theists? Can’t any of this be a hint toward reality, or must we think that the bulk of humanity flirts with insanity?”
Pretty sure this man can answer that question better than I can.
