10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer

10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer October 28, 2019

I never like to open my blog posts with an apology, but you and I both know that it’s called for. I’m sorry. I know I’ve answered these ridiculous questionnaires for atheists before and we’re all pretty settled on the fact that the askers aren’t interested in our answers anyway, but what the hell do you expect me to do when I come across them? I found these questions in a YouTube video and not three seconds into the damned thing, I was already yelling at my computer. There are just so many things to say, and I am not about to keep them to myself, and so you, my darling loves, must also suffer with me. I am so sorry. Onward. 

Here’s the video that proposes ten questions us heathens CANNOT answer:

The first question is a fair question, I think: 

1. Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s questions? 

When people ask this question, it’s evident that they don’t understand what science is, because the question itself is nonsensical. 

Science isn’t an answer. Science is a method by which we discover answers. The reason why we turn to science is that science has a mechanism built-in to iron out personal bias. Science cannot answer everything as yet, but it’s okay not to know things. The solution to not knowing isn’t to make up a story to fill the gap in our knowledge, it’s to keep looking until you find the answer. I don’t think we will ever exist in a universe where humans have all the answers, but why would we want to? If we have all the answers already, there’s no mystery or wonder left. There are no more frontiers, no more exploration and discovery. 

So, no, science is not the answer to all of life’s questions, it’s merely a potential route to the answer.

2. Why do atheists care if people worship god? 

I can only speak for myself, but the answer is that I don’t care. If you’re not telling me I need to share your beliefs, and you’re not pushing for your god belief to affect policy, and you’re not knocking on my door trying to steal my finite time with front-stoop Bible study, then I do not care. The key here is to keep it to yourself. Not everyone shares your god belief, and even the people who do believe in god may not identify with your particular brand of theism. You don’t get to expect us to live by your theistic rule book. As long as you’re okay with other people having values you may not agree with, and you don’t push your god belief on us, policy or children, then we’re good. Believe away. 

3. Can nothing create something? 

I don’t know. I also don’t believe this happened. When it comes to the beginning of the universe and what set the Big Bang in motion, my answer is that I do not know. Until I do know, with evidence, I maintain that position. 

4. How do you know that god doesn’t exist?

I don’t. However, until I know one does exist, there’s no sense believing in god. 

5. What is the origin of life? 

Dunno, homeslice. Neither do you.  

6. Where does our morality come from? 

Our morality comes from many places. For instance, our conscience, and the real-world consequences we have to deal with as a result of our actions. Our compassion and empathy play significant roles in our ethics. Of course, our accepted societal norms are also a driving force behind it. This is why what is considered moral in one part of the world may not be considered moral in another part of the world. 

Even if there were a source of objective morality, we live in a world where it is obsolete and useless. Every, single, solitary human on Earth has a different moral makeup than everyone else. We live with subjective morality and must develop our ethics within that reality.

Morality is a product of evolution as it lends itself to our survival as a species. We developed the capacity for empathy because recognizing the pain and hurt in others stops us, for the most part, from harming them. Unless our empathy is broken in some way, it helps us avoid killing each other and allows us to value life. 

7. If you had evidence of god, would you become a Christian?

No. I would accept god’s existence, but I would not worship such a hateful and vengeful creator. 

8. If evolution is real, why are there no transitional forms in the present?

This question is also nonsensical. It tells me that you have a feeble understanding of what evolution is. See, the thing is, technically every single living thing is a transitional form. You can learn more about what evolution is, so you can form your questions better next time, by visiting this page.

9. Do you live according to what you believe or do you live according to what you lack in belief? 

There is no way to live your life according to what you lack in belief. I lack a belief in all gods. You lack a belief in all but one. Do you live your life by your lack of belief in Thor? 

10. If god exists, will you not lose your soul when you die? 

This question means nothing to me because I do not believe in a soul, nor do I believe in your version of god and the afterlife. Let me ask you a question. If Hinduism is correct, and you live your life as a Christian and a meat-eater, are you prepared to boil in Kumbhipakam?

I guess it turns out atheists can answer these questions, after all, hey church boy? The question now becomes: will you accept my answers?

I’d love to know your answers to these questions. Let me know in the comments and sorry, heathens, for subjecting you to this questionnaire nonsense yet again. 

Book of the day:


Buy Me A Coffee
I’m writing a book addressing the many reasons believers distrust atheists. I’m around 40,000 words in! If you want to help me get it done, you can support me by donating here or becoming a patron here.

Image: Creative Commons/Pixabay

"Who?Look, the Kardashians are not producers, they're products. And Kim's voluptuous physique has been her ..."

Why I Owe Kim Kardashian West ..."
"Not even to them. Any benefits they perceive are happenstance, not planned. He tells them ..."

10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer
"The one who thinks it's an accomplishment."

Why I Owe Kim Kardashian West ..."
"Thank you for the misogyny. If you want to complain about someone riding on daddy's ..."

Why I Owe Kim Kardashian West ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian Gregory Lopez

    Just a reminder that I’m proud of your work. Keep up the good fight.

  • adhoc

    3. Can nothing create something?

    Nothing is rather unstable in the universe we find ourselves in. I’m going to guess the person that asked this question can not comprehend a “nothing”.

    4. How do you know that god doesn’t exist?

    Which god? God claims are what make gods unrealistic.

    5. What is the origin of life?

    This one is easy. For my life, it’s my Mom and Dad. Work backwards from there… for yourself and every one else.

    6. Where does our morality come from?

    Not from a book. If you get your morality from a book, you are probably a horrible human being.

    7. If you had evidence of god, would you become a Christian?

    No. Because if there was a “god”, it wouldn’t be a the Christian god.

    8. If evolution is real, why are there no transitional forms in the present?

    See answer to #5. Everything is transitional once it reproduces.

  • Raging Bee

    #4: What I DO know is that: a) None of anyone’s claims about the existence of any gods have ever been supported by any evidence; b) None of those claims even sound plausible, let alone believable; c) None of the PEOPLE making such claims have any credibility; d) all those claims contradict each other and the claimants have yet to reconcile those contradictions (after thousands of years, mind you); and e) If any supernatural creator-god really does exist, none of the people who believe in him/her have shown any ability to comprehend such a being — 69hell, that lot can’t even comprehend their own children, or their own people’s history, so how can we expect them to comprehend any god? So that’s FIVE good reasons to discount all claims of the existence of any gods as false until proven true.

    ETA: f) It’s standard practice to treat claims of the existence of something as false until proven true. That is, after all, how we treat claims of the existence of vampires, werewolves, ETs, monsters under our beds, etc. That’s how we HAVE to treat such claims, otherwise we’d all be running about like decapitated chickens in response to whatever unfounded lunatic utterances we hear on any given day.

    So that’s SIX reasons…

  • Jim Jones

    Three questions theists cannot answer.

    1. Define ‘god’.

    2. Which god?

    3. How do you know?

    BTW: “Comments are turned off”

    LOL

  • Raging Bee

    And you actually left them a place to post whatever answers they have! I have no doubt we’ll be hearing from them soon…any day now…*checks watch*…

  • Jim Jones
  • #1: In a sense yes. Sure that some things are outside of it’s uses but for everything else works more or less well and can self-correct. It’s not perfect but it’s better than to take at face value texts that are several thousands of years old.

    #2: I don’t care what people practice. My problems are when they try to force down their beliefs in others with threats or worse, as well as when they negate what science has to say and consider it as BS when it has far more evidence supporting it than said texts. Especially when one knows their history.

    #3: Quantum physics. ‘Nuff said, and again supported by a lot of observational evidence.

    #4: Pantheism aside, if there’s a deity it would be something totally different to the entity described in those texts. And circular reasoning is not gonna work.

    #5: Abiogenesis. See point #1 again.

    #6: Evolution and those conducts that it has selected for a social species as ours.

    #7: Which deity exactly?. If that was the one they’re thinking on I’d become that out of self-interest to save my skin of an eternity of torment as that fact would be quite worriesome. Of course also if things are as in the Fundy scenario, there’d be a lot of questions and if they turned out to be different see for example the Salvation War.

    #8: Evolution does not work that way.

    #10: For all we know, maybe Sumerians got things right and no matter how you behaved you’ll end up in Kurd under the rule of Ereshkigal -or any Christian sect long gone including it having been destroyed by the Inquisition or its Protestant equivalent, not to mention the beliefs of the hundreds of cultures all around the world-. I’d not gamble an eternity when all you can offer as proof is just the aforementioned texts.

    Also, Judaism has no souls at first and everything was material.

  • Michael Neville

    Can nothing create something?

    Define nothing. Be rigorous. Support your definition.

  • Anri

    1) Only if one defines science so broadly as to include all evidential-based conclusions. Then I would say it arguably gives us the warranted answers to life’s questions we have so far. Formal science makes no claims to answer all of life’s questions and people presuming it does are – deliberately or otherwise – misunderstanding its purpose and operation.

    2) Clearly, by their behavior, theists generally speaking care if atheists and other theists worship their god. As soon as theists stop making their god-worship impossible to ignore, I will happily ignore it. So long as it is made impossible to ignore, it will be impossible for me to ignore it.

    3) My understanding is that we are uncertain if actual “nothingness” is a valid state, even theoretically. Until we’re sure there is actually such a thing as “nothing”, this question is of necessity incoherent.

    4) I only “know” that in the sense of being sufficiently convinced of it. Unlike theists, I don’t claim ultimate, imperishable, absolute knowledge.

    5) It appears to be a tendency for certain types of chemical reactions to become self-sustaining. We’re still working out the details. And that’s the point – we’re still looking into it, still making discoveries, still working out the details, not just folding our arms and declaring it eternally ineffable.

    6) A combination of innate morality as a social species and (hopefully) reasoned understanding of how to achieve shared societal goals.

    7) I have seen a lot of evidence for god, most of it of extremely poor quality. That’s not actually the question you were trying to ask, was it? Perhaps learn to write more accurately.

    8) The entire premise of modern evolutionary theory is that there are literally nothing but transitional forms. Every species is transitioning either into another species or extinction. Not understanding this betrays a deep lack of comprehension of evolution.

    9) Both. I do not see how they are separable.

    10) That depends on exactly which god exists.

    Well, that took, I dunno, 10 minutes or so? Including scroll-back-and-read-the-questions-in-the-initial-post-time.

    My follow-up question would be if I have to count answering these unanswerable things as a single list, or if I can count them individually and maybe justify a dinner at Milliways?

  • Wisdom, Justice, Love

    Was going to post a list myself, think I’ll hitch a ride with those that have said much of it already.

    #1
    Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s questions?
    The question itself is misleading and a false equivalence.
    What’s your favorite color? Who’s your favorite actor? Neither of those require science per se.

    No one expects science to answer every question. The real question that is a YES in my book: Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s CHALLENGES?
    #$@^% Yeah!!!!

    Polio, literacy, space discovery, industry. Name any challenge faced by people where prayer is more effective than science.

  • Jim Jones

    > scientifically speaking, intelligence is only ever created by intelligence.

    Prove it.

  • Synfandel

    By “scientifically speaking”, he meant “asserting without evidence or argument”.

  • Graham Alarms

    Prove otherwise

  • Graham Alarms

    Evidence or argument? Come on. The burden of evidence is on those who would disagree. If I assert that only men barbecue steaks, I could show you a thousand pictures of men barbecuing steaks as my proof. However, if you disagree, all you have to do is produce one picture of a woman barbecuing steak to disprove my entire argument. So go ahead and provide just one example of intelligence being created by non-intelligence and my thesis is destroyed. Until then, there are millions of examples in evidence of intelligence being created by intelligence. Therefore, my thesis stands.

  • Raging Bee

    We have plenty of evidence showing that intelligent species evolved from less-intelligent species. The evidence supports a plausible story, with known mechanisms to make it work; and many attempts to refute that theory have failed (or been proven to be dishonest). So yeah, that’s how we know.

  • Raging Bee

    OUR burden of evidence has been satisfied. Now YOU have a burden, if you want to dispute our understanding of reality.

  • Jim Jones

    Cymothoa exigua

  • “4. How do you know that god doesn’t exist?
    I don’t. However, until I know one does exist, there’s no sense believing in god.”

    I don’t know absolutely that there are no such things as gods, but the god presented in the Bible isn’t just one god — it’s several. The Christian claim that there’s only one god means they don’t really believe their own book. There’s “El” aka “El Elyon” or in English “the Most High,” and in Deuteronomy 32 he bequeathed Israel to the one called “The LORD” (Adonai), probably originally “Yahweh” (Jehovah). Christians, and Jews beginning about the time of the prophets, believe that these two gods are the same, but the authors of the original Bible books clearly saw them as different gods. Most have explanations for why Deuteronomy 32 doesn’t mean what it says.

    So although I can’t say there are no such things as ghosts/spirits/minds-without-bodies/gods, I can tell from the Bible itself that biblegod is the product of speculation, not revelation.

    And going a step further, the possibility that a mind could exist without a brain is incredibly remote.

  • Agreed. Additionally, I care because they’re trying to pass their beliefs on to yet another generation, who will be harmed by these beliefs just as they we (self included, as I believed this mythology until I was 52 years old). At least their numbers are shrinking, as it’s getting harder and harder to stay in the bubble.

  • Carol Lynn

    Burden of proof does not work that way. You have made a claim. Provide actual, holds up to scientific scrutiny, and falsifiable evidence for it.

  • Jet Kin

    If 1 & 3 are true, who is the intelligent being who created god?
    See also: basic logic and infinite regression

  • Synfandel

    So go ahead and provide just one example of intelligence being created by non-intelligence and my thesis is destroyed.

    Your request assumes that all intelligence is created. Human, and other animal, intelligence evolved. If you want to include that process in what you call “creation”, you have your thesis-destroying example,

  • You know how sand dunes and river meanders are only ever created by intelligence? Like that.

  • Raging Bee

    NOTHING created God, ’cause he’s God!
    See also: special pleading and convenient exceptions to basic logic.

  • Jet Kin

    So basic logic (and really all science) is only applicable when it can be used to defend bad ideas, otherwise it’s evil. Hmmm… sounds familiar. Shall we go and burn some books now?

  • Jet Kin

    The jury is out on whether all members of a given species can be qualified as “intelligent”

  • Jim Jones

    And fractal shapes.

  • Robert Baden

    7. Ignores the possibility the Jews were right about Jesus.

  • Jane Ravenswood

    My take on #2 is that religions are built on hating the “other” and they cause harm. I care about this.

    and theists still can’t explain why an “objective morality” is better.

    you can contact these frightened christians here: http://www.inspiredwalk.com/contact

  • Greg Russell

    I’m curious what evidence you have that a potential god is a hateful and vengeful creator?

  • Pope Hilarius II

    typical bullshit excuses and misrepresentations.
    You’d think xians would be afraid of hell because of all the f’n lying they do

  • Pope Hilarius II

    typical bullsh*t excuses and misrepresentations.
    You’d think xians would be afraid of hell because of all the f’n lying they do

  • Raging Bee

    Um…the Bible that purports to describe him?

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Definitions tell us things based on other known things, so we can experience them ourselves.

    Your supposed ‘definition’ *doesn’t* allow anybody else to objectively verify this ‘god’ of yours.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Nope.

    YOU made the positive assertion, YOU bear the burden of proof / evidence.

    All we have to say is we won’t believe you *until* you’ve done so, no matter how intuitively 69seductive an idea may be.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    /s

  • kradek

    Please provide an example of intelligence creating intelligence.

    If you say AI you’ve proven God doesn’t exist or your asserting the coders and computer engineers are gods.

    My problem isnt the absurdity of your beliefs it’s the fact you ignore simple logic with your arguments.

  • kradek

    Until you can show any example of intelligence creating intelligence you have no argument

  • kradek

    Besimidish is supreme. Prove me wrong.

  • Wile F. Coyote

    The notion of “nothing” was something I realized in 3rd grade was incomprehensible to me (still is). I was pondering it because I was then first considering the claim, taught me in Sunday School, that a supernatural “being” created itself in that “nothing” which preceded the physical universe, and did so at some point before that “being” proceeded to create the physical universe. Through the action of thinking, or force of will, or wiggling its ephemeral equivalent of a nose or something. Somehow. And as a result of this sequence of thoughts, voila’, creationism occurred! An atheist was created.

  • Marc Weeks

    Didn’t he give everyone a death sentence? And didn’t he even once impatiently kill a bunch? (Think Flood.) I’m surprised anyone had to ask.

  • Jim Jones

    > So go ahead and provide just one example of intelligence being created by non-intelligence and my thesis is destroyed.

    Every animal on our planet. Even Megaphragma mymaripenne.

    Uniquely, by the time M. mymaripenne reaches adulthood, 95% of its nervous cells have lost their nuclei. Only 339–372 nuclei are found throughout the central nervous system, of which 179–253 are found in the brain.

    And it STILL does its job, unlike Donald Trump.

  • Martin Penwald

    Yum!
    Bon appétit !

  • C_Alan_Nault

    These sorts of lists of questions never have any questions I cannot answer.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “1. Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s questions? ”

    Too vague a question. What, exactly, are “life’s questions”? Is every question one of life’s questions?

  • Graham Alarms

    huh?

  • Graham Alarms

    Shapes and crystals are not intelligence.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “2. Why do atheists care if people worship god? ”

    We don’t. But why is the person asking that question instead of “Why do atheists care if people worship gods?” ? the followers of the Hindu religion have numerous deities, not a single god.

  • I adore you, Brian!

  • Jim Jones

    Is “What are life’s questions” one of life’s questions?

  • Graham Alarms

    For now, the god(s) we are concerned with is/are the one(s) who seeded this planet.

  • He’s got his fingers in his ears, that’s for sure.

  • Graham Alarms

    Could you clarify your statement, please.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “6. Where does our morality come from? ”

    It definitely does not come from the Bible. If it did, believers would be out there killing homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, people who worship a different god, people who worship no god, people who work on the Sabbath day ( Saturday), and women who were not virgins on their wedding night.

    If we got our morals from the bible, we would accept slavery as being OK.

  • Graham Alarms

    Are you trying to give an example of intelligence creating intelligence?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “7. If you had evidence of god, would you become a Christian?”

    Not if it was evidence for Shiva or Thor or Anubis or Zeus etc etc.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “10. If god exists, will you not lose your soul when you die? ”

    A nonsensical question. It ranks right up there with “If Odin exists, will you not be denied entry into Valhalla if you do not die in battle?”.

  • Graham Alarms

    Okay. My son and daughter-in-law just had a baby. Intelligence creating intelligence. There you go. One for me none for your, (If we’re keeping score) .

  • Graham Alarms

    Example (as I stated in another comment): My son and daughter-in-law just had a baby. Intelligence creating intelligence..

  • Graham Alarms

    For now, the god(s) we are concerned with is/are the one(s) who seeded this planet.

  • Graham Alarms

    Did I say basic logic and all science were evil? I’m using both to answer the three questions.

  • Graham Alarms


    If you say AI you’ve proven God doesn’t exist”. Are you serious right now? Is this your form of logic? So if I say my sister made this pizza today does that prove that my mother made one yesterday?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    I dunno, they haven’t defined what they mean by “life’s questions” ?

  • Jet Kin

    You didn’t answer the question. Who created this intelligent god of yours?

  • Greg Russell

    Written by humans. Sure divinely inspired, but subject to human bias. Maybe the gods from all religions is the same god, but human bias make them seem different.

    How can the old and new testament be so different? Maybe god realized that fire and brimstone didn’t work. Maybe he doesn’t know the future, but can guess pretty good. Humans are not rational, but they’re “predictably irrational”. In god’s current state, it’s plausible that he’s letting his creation play out which means he would need to bake evolution into his design. This is why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. He’s not intervening.

    The hatefulness and vengefulness are from people.

  • Andrea Fitzgerald

    Excellent!

  • I was being sarcastic. River meanders have a natural explanation. Intelligence also has a natural explanation.

  • Bob

    Ummm… The “created” and “seeded” parts of your statement are what we in the business call claims. You assume that there is no mechanism by which intelligence can arise independently, while also claiming a spontaneously-occurring intelligence was responsible for the advent of intelligence on Earth. As the claimant in this case of extraordinary circumstance, the burden of proof really is yours to bear.

  • Shaun G. Lynch

    To the question “Where does morality come from?” one of my stock answers is Game Theory. We naturally tend to seek an optimal balance among competing interests. As a consequence, even in the absence of anyone or anything to supply rewards and punishments, we tend towards behaviour that can be codified into a system of morality.

  • Nothingness (not vacuum as understood by quantum physics) could well be just a physical construct

  • Graham Alarms

    ” The evidence supports a plausible story”. Plausible “story”, perhaps, but not scientific.

  • Graham Alarms

    “no religious person is going to agree with your limited definition of god” So you want me give a definition that fits someone’s religious views now? A scientific definition is insufficient for you?

  • Graham Alarms

    Nice try. Intelligence certainly evolves but it didn’t evolve from non-intelligence. At least, there is no proof of that ever happening. Sorry.

  • Graham Alarms

    I have just given you falsifiable evidence. “All intelligence has only ever been created by intelligence”. Evidence is abundant, by observing every intelligent thing in nature, human, animal, insect, etc. we see that an intelligent entity was responsible for its existence. However, this is easy to refute, if you could only find a single contradictory observation.

  • Graham Alarms

    You don’t have to “believe” me. Believe the prodigious evidence around you. Intelligence proceeding from intelligence. Not a single exception has been found yet. So until there is one found, the only thing you have to go on is the “faith” that one will someday be found. Hardly scientific.

  • kradek

    The truth of Besimidish is obvious

  • Graham Alarms

    DNA replicating itself is intelligence creating intelligence. Countless trillions of examples there, for starters.

  • Graham Alarms

    Your burden of evidence has been satisfied. How so?

  • Graham Alarms

    and that natural explanation is…?

  • Graham Alarms

    Thanks for further proving my point Bob.

  • kradek

    Nonsense. The only intelligence exhibited at the cellular level is response to stimulate which is not intelligence

  • Synfandel

    There is equally no proof that human intelligence was created by a prior intelligence. And if it were true that intelligence could be created only by some other intelligence, the obvious question would be: who created the intelligence that created human intelligence? And who created the intelligence that created the intelligence that created human intelligence, et cetera ad infinitum. Your unproven claim gets you nowhere.

  • kradek

    Read his book. It’s worse than Mein Kamph

  • Jim Jones

    Singing lalalala …!

  • Jim Jones

    Gods are impossible.

  • Jim Jones

    All Hail Besimidish, Creator of so called Gods.

  • Jim Jones

    Prove it.

  • Jim Jones

    It’ll spoil your dinner!

  • Greg Russell

    Paraphrased by humans and their biases.

    I don’t think so. Hitler said the destruction of the weak and sick is more humane then their protection vs the opposite.

  • Jim Jones

    God can’t exist because of Eric, the God-Eating magic penguin. Since Eric is god-eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat god. So, if god exists, he automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten.

    So unless you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist, god doesn’t exist. Even if you can prove Eric doesn’t exist, that same proof will also be applicable to god.

    There are only two possibilities. Either you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist or you can’t. In both cases it logically follows that god doesn’t exist.

    Further, imagine the greatest possible god-eating penguin. A penguin that existed and had eaten a god would be greater than a non-existent one that had eaten no gods, therefore a god-eating penguin that has eaten a god must exist.

    That said, a god-eating penguin who has eaten entire pantheons of gods would be even greater, therefore all gods have existed and Eric has eaten them all.

  • Jim Jones

    If a space alien was given a sponge cake and a cauliflower, how would he know which was natural and which was man made?

  • Greg Russell

    Whether we believe in god or not, we cannot come close to understanding how it thinks or how its mind(?) works. For an all powerful being, we cannot relate. There’s nothing we can compare it to so it’s presumptive to think we know. It’s knowledge base far exceeds ours. It has no adversary. Why would it be hateful, It has nothing to prove.

  • Graham Alarms

    Nonsense? So how do you account for intelligence? Does it exist on its own, without cause then?

  • Graham Alarms

    Impossible?

  • Graham Alarms

    Yeah, I guess you might as well resort to silliness if you’ve run out of sound arguments.

  • Jim Jones

    I have not yet begun to argue.

  • For human intelligence? Evolution.

    Perhaps this is a trick question?

  • Jim Jones

    Correct.

  • Graham Alarms

    Irrelevant to my comment. I’m simply saying in our experience (not the alien’s) man-made things are obviously made by intelligence, and intelligence only.

  • Jim Jones

    Not obvious at all. Thinking doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. How would they know that concrete wasn’t natural?

  • David Peebles

    No scientific definition of god can exist. But if I had to try: god is an imaginary entity invented by humans so they could blame someone for crop failures, or propitiate someone who might make everything okay, and, of course, smite enemies (i.e. those who abase themselves before a rival god or gods).

  • Raging Bee

    I already answered that, in response to another of your comments. And it kinda looks like you’re avoiding it.

  • Raging Bee

    I’ll believe that when an actual scientist says it.

  • Raging Bee

    How can the old and new testament be so different? Maybe god realized that fire and brimstone didn’t work.

    I thought Hell was first mentioned in the NEW Testament, not the Old.

  • kradek

    Your question is logical nonsense as phrased but to answer, yes I believe it’s conceivable that we may be able to determine at what point in history intellience developed but what you dont understand is that intelligence evolved in very primitive organisms billions of years ago. Problem solving is intelligence. Intelligence is a definition. It’s a description of behavior. It isnt a thing.

    If you actually want a conversation about it you need to define it. In this case you need to define what set of behaviors meets your critera

  • Pat Gustafson

    Who seeded this planet? Your dad..

  • Pat Gustafson

    Dude, we know that a lot of really dumb people can have a baby. In fact, there are people with severely low IQs who can still have a child.

  • Pat Gustafson

    Sounds like you love to mindf&ck yourself. Is it enjoyable at least? Doesn’t sound like it to me. Adiós, FYI I do not read replies.

  • Karen the rock whisperer

    Hey, don’t go dissing future rock formations with such comparisons! 🙂

  • Graham Alarms

    Proof of that?

  • Graham Alarms

    I just gave a scientific definition of god.
    “An intelligent being (or beings) who seeded this planet with intelligence”. That definition has nothing to do with crop failures or enemies. It’s just utilizing Occam’s Razor as to the origin of intelligence on this planet.

  • Graham Alarms

    Then you won’t be offended when I say you are a terrible embarrassment to the otherwise rational commenters on this thread. Adios.

  • Graham Alarms

    Haha. “an actual scientist”. Good one.

  • Graham Alarms

    Reading doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Go over what I said again: “in OUR experience (NOT the aliene’s)”.

  • Brien

    Atheists do not need to answer any questions, as we only await one demand – Prove your damned god….

  • Jim Jones

    I accept your capitulation.

  • Adrian Sparkles

    As an Aussie, when asked about transitional animals I like to present the Platypus. A Mammal that lays eggs, has a beak, has a venomous claw, lives in water, and suckles it young without nipples. how much more transitional do you want??? to be honest most marsupials are a bit weird but the platypus is an evolutionary snapshot if ever i’ve seen one.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    sorry to break this to you but their was 0 intelligence required for the purely biological act of producing a child, insects manage to sexually reproduce.

    So please try again to prove that intelligence can only come from intelligence, and while we are at it please define intelligence as, given how you have defined god, i suspect that your definition is both highly specific and self serving.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    that is not a ‘scientific’ anything, that is a personal (and self serving) definition that you are using as the bed rock of a flawed argument. It is most defiantly not using occams razor as you are committing the cardinal sin of using that blade, you are introducing an unrequired entity.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    so evolution is a myth in your world then i assume?

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    given we are talking about an imaginary creature there can be no more a ‘scientific’ definition of god than there is a taxonomy of dragons. The inability of the religious to accurately define their own deity is a huge clue as to the fact that it isn’t real.

    Feel free to peruse the internet to look for more standard definitions of any deity, they are legion, however i am confident that if you suggested that your definition of a deity was sufficient to any fervent believer they will tell you that you are wrong. Where is the well spring of morality? where is the big brother judgement? defining a deity the way you do is absolutely a post hoc support for your intelligence begats intelligence ‘argument’. Here’s a hint for you, science does not start with a conclusion and then try to create or shoehorn argument and evidence into fitting that conclusion.

  • Hugh

    Can something come from nothing? Well, it depends how you define “nothing”, but yes …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

  • Contractions of Fate

    Oh, I already saw that garbage a while ago.

  • Dhammarato

    “The burden of evidence is on those who would disagree.” ha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahah ha!

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It up to you to provide evidence. When I reject your claim due to your lack of evidence I need no evidence to reject, the evidence is needed to prove a claim not rejecting one.

    So you sir are required to prove both you claims. 1) That intelligence exist. And 2) intelligence does produce intelligence. Bet 100 eu you have no proofs. So far you completely fail on point 1.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    I read that first as ‘vanilla’.

    Just as relevant, and funnier, IMHO.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    ***STACK OVERFLOW***

    😉

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    So your supposed ‘god’ is so puny it can’t even force the few humans it supposedly *has* communicated with from telling the truth about it?

    Pitiful.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Greggie-poo leaves out how his ‘god’ is *supposedly* ‘unchanging’, too.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    You’re purposely skipping over the fact that we can *demonstrate* that (hu)man(ity) EXISTS.

    Until you can do that for this silly ‘god’ idea of yours, your construct here falls flat like a bottomless house of cards.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Nope.

    I’m interested in evidence that ANY ‘god(s)’, yours or others, even *exist*.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    But you’re starting from bad axioms / postulates.

    As my old math prof used to say, “From a false antecedent, ANYTHING follows.” (false antecedent = ‘god’, conclusion *also* = ‘god’, so you’ve got a circular reasoning fallacy in there, too)

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Politesse is not real politeness…and you long since relinquished ANY claim on being treated gently.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    If you call that your definition, fine.

    DEMONSTRATE that it’s more than just you playing with words.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Considering some of the people having kids these days, it’s more like lust, the urge to merge, that created yet another bundle of urge that *may* be intelligent someday.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Urge for pleasure creating a bundle of id and urge to survive.

    No intelligence there.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    DNA replicating itself is *chemistry*…

    try again.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Intelligence is an *emergent* phenomenon of sufficiently complex organisms, based on all the EVIDENCE we currently have.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    The evidence around me is evidence for *itself*…not for whatever unsupported pet ‘theory’ (more like ‘wild 69assed guess’) you want to trot out.

    And you’re STILL falling back on trying to claim that ‘common sense’ supports you, which is arrant nonsense. Common sense teaches people not to touch hot things so they don’t get burned, the world over. Religions diverge, instead…xtianity alone has about 44.000 sects at the moment, so it for SURE isn’t common sense.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    You’ve got to learn that A CLAIM IS NOT EVIDENCE.

    Back to the drawing board.

  • Raging Bee

    Yeah, that’s why we can safely discount EVERYTHING any mere humans say about God(s).

  • Raging Bee

    The answer is 42. What was the question?

  • Raging Bee

    So you’re saying the Bible is unreliable? Got it.

  • Raging Bee

    Haha. No substance or point. Lame one.

  • kradek

    So you have no reply to my post…and once again Christian’s disappear in a puff of logic

  • C_Alan_Nault

    LOL

  • Graham Alarms

    Sorry Hairy, I don’t understand your question . Is this a typo: “the fact that we CAN *demonstrate* that (hu)man(ity) EXISTS”. Did you mean “CAN’T”? Please clarify.

  • Graham Alarms

    How is that a capitulation?

  • Carol Lynn

    You realize that your speculations on this do not constitute any kind of ‘proof’ at all, right? There is no ‘rigorous definition’ and certainly no math to support it in them.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    So what functional purpose does any god serve if humans are tasked with interpreting his will?

  • Carol Lynn

    Huh? I though that even in a religious world-view, humans were a special creation *because* they were ‘intelligent’ and ensouled and fundamentally unlike insects and animals. If insects and “nature” and humans all have “intelligence’ in your world, you need to give a more rigorous definition of ‘intelligence’ before any of your points can be addressed. You can’t just handwave ‘god’ and ‘look at nature’ into what is supposed to be rigorous argument here. Do plants – presumably also created by the same intelligence you are claiming shoved intelligence into everywhere else – have ‘intelligence’, too, in your odd little un-scientific universe?

  • Carol Lynn

    Ok – that is definitely a claim you need to prove. Your failure of imagination and knowledge does not equal ‘the only way this could have happened is if this place was seeded’. What is your evidence for that besides staring around and handwaving “nature”? If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve already lost. How did abiogenesis come about? I don’t know. You don’t either.

  • Sachin

    Why should one argue with ones own set of beliefs? Everybody has a set of reality. Create your own world and just say yes for the one arguing with you and be happy when actually you are fooling him and its you who is winning. Keep your belief as a secret to destroy others (their time will come just be silent) or else how will the world function? This comment is to the ones who believe as well as disbelieve in god. Ha ha ha mad people. Really mad and retarded. Stop this ya. Plz hahaha as if education/religion is a solution to all problems. Fact is nothing works only thing is that we make it to work the way we want it.

  • Graham Alarms

    “Evidence for *itself*”? Yes, if you put it that way, intelligence is evidence for intelligence. So just what other kind of evidence are you looking for here?

  • Graham Alarms

    Allow me to expand my thesis a little bit so you might understand it. An ‘intelligent’ ‘being’ seeded this planet with intelligence, IN VARYING DEGREES. So plants were seeded with intelligence, per the first definition of intelligence in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: ” the ability to …deal with new or trying situations”. (As in a houseplant bending towards the source of sunlight in the home). So, no, not the same intelligence as humans as found in the second definition: “the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria”. But intelligence, nevertheless. This is in no way unscientific.

  • Graham Alarms

    Excuse me, are you really suggesting that intelligence does not exist, or had not been proven to exist??? Before you lose your 100eu you might consult a dictionary for a definition of intelligence. (Hint: the fact that we’re having this discussion is proof that intelligence exists and is alive and well.)

  • Raging Bee

    Somewhere in the sky, a Valkyrie is giggling…

  • Graham Alarms

    THIS is your best argument against an intelligent being seeding the planet.with intelligence?

  • Guestie

    His fingers were Intelligently Designed by God to into his ears so he would remain ignorant. Checkmate atheists.

  • Jim Jones

    I note your lack of a coherent argument against the Penguin of Death.

  • Jim Jones

    Ha ha ha ha. ??!!??

  • Carol Lynn

    You know, just stating ‘this is in no way unscientific’ doesn’t actually make it unscientific. You seem to be suggesting that plants have a *conscious* “intelligent” reaction to sunlight rather than a strictly chemical one. There isn’t any evidence of ‘intelligence’ here. Let me help – from an explanation for phototropism written at a child’s level of understanding – “The plant cells that are on the “shady” side of the plant actually grow longer than the cells on the “sunny” side. These longer cells grow this way because of a chemical in them called an auxin. An auxin, is a plant growth hormone that helps regulate shoot growth. Under normal light conditions auxins are spread out in the plant. But when sunlight varies, auxin is broken down on the sunnier side of the stem. The higher concentration of auxin on the shady side causes the plant cells on that side to grow more so it bends toward the light. “

  • Carol Lynn

    Oh, and no ‘intelligence’ had to design the plants to do that. Evolution – change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time – did a fine job with the chemistry with no aliens or god needed to explain how it came about.

  • Graham Alarms

    Sorry t break this to you but insects are intelligent (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/do-insects-have-consciousness-ego-180958824/). Regardless, in humans and insects, intelligence is passed on to the new entity (baby) from the parents. Just llok up intelligence in the dictionary and you will see that the various forms of life all have intelligence in varying degrees. (All provided by the intelligent being who seeded this planet). Not a self-serving definition. Just the dictionary definition(s).

  • Graham Alarms

    Evolution within species is an observable fact of life. Inter-species evolution is an unproven, outworn (although still popular) theory with no credible proof WHATSOEVER.

  • Synfandel

    To paraphrase…

    “I’m right. The evidence is all around you. All you have to go on is the ‘faith’ that I’m wrong.”

    Well, when you put it that incontrovertibly, I’m totally convinced. Well done.

  • Graham Alarms

    Here’s my point: Which “actual scientist” will you believe? … the one FOR or AGAINST, say, Global Warming. … the one FOR or AGAINST Dark Matter/Energy model of the universe … the one FOR or AGAINST [any current theory]. Maybe you should think for yourself and not rely on fickle scientists to draw your conclusions for you.

  • Graham Alarms

    “Actually, intelligence inevitably will arise via evolution.” Actually, no it won’t “naturally” arise. If you think it will, you’re missing the key, which is, where did the organism get the intelligence to avoid being eaten or prevent falling in the first place?

  • Graham Alarms

    Just wanted to know first if this was a serious argument you’re putting forth so as not to waste time.

  • Graham Alarms

    Your paraphrase completely changes the meaning of my statement. Well done.

  • Yes, it’s just wild speculation based on ideas elsewhere as the Universe having popped up from a quantum fluctuation and claims of it being infinite.

    I think Roger Penrose had a similar idea and remember to have seen something similar on an essay by Isaac Asimov.

  • Jim Jones

    “I’ll tell you what you did with atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive.

    And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.”
    ― Dr Madalyn Murray O’Hair

  • Synfandel

    Thanks for further proving my point Bob.

    And thank you, Graham, for proving my point and totally destroying your own point.

    (Hey, that was fun. And easy. I should use that ridiculous ploy more often.)

  • Synfandel

    I guess you might as well resort to silliness if you’ve run out of sound arguments.

    Dude, you started it.

  • Graham Alarms

    Yes, a claim is not the evidence. For instance, Here’s a credible (falsifiable) claim: “All swans are white” Here’s the evidence: All swans ever observed have been white … at least until 1697,when a black swan was actually observed. The contrary evidence instantly destroyed the claim. So here’s my credible (falsifiable) claim: “All intelligent beings have their source in a preexisting intelligent being. Here’s the evidence: All intelligent beings EVER observed have been produced by another intelligent being. This claim will be nullified only IF and WHEN the observation of an intelligent being produced without the facility of another intelligent being.

  • Graham Alarms

    What on earth does that quote have to with this discussion? Another red herring; Please just let me know if your convoluted Penguin thing is a serious argument.

  • Graham Alarms

    I am at a loss to accurately define my mother-in-law, but that does not provide a clue as to whether she is real.or not. And thanks, but I am not that interested in the “standard” definitions of deity. My belief is as valid as any other’s (I think atheists would agree with that statement). We are not talking about the wellspring of morality, etc. here. We’re just talking about the rationality of there being an intelligence that seeded this planet. And thanks for your condescending hint, but we’re all aware of the scientific method, which involves making an observation [e.g., intelligence seems to always be produced by a preexisting source of intelligence], asking a question [since there is currently intelligence on this planet, and since there always seems to be a preexisting source of intelligence producing each new instance of intelligence, is it logical to assume that the primal source of intelligence on this earth came from a foreign intelligence?], stating a hypothesis [An intelligent being or beings seeded this planet with intelligence], performing an experiment [examining various examples of intelligent entities to determine if they occurred spontaneously or were produced by another intelligent source], documenting the results [no instances of spontaneous intelligence formations, without preexisting intelligent input have been observed] and stating a conclusion [Until a single instance of spontaneous intelligence formation (without preexisting intelligent input) is observed, it is logical and reasonable to postulate the existence of a pre-earth intelligence that seeded our planet with intelligence].

  • Raging Bee

    “Fickle scientists?” Please. Their CENTURIES of accumulated knowledge is more credible than you lot any day.

  • Graham Alarms

    (Fickle was a mistaken word choice. What I meant was ‘conflicting’ scientists.) Anyway, I’ll answer my question for you: The scientists we tend to believe (if we’re honest) are the ones which confirm our worldview.

  • Raging Bee

    “Conflicting scientists?” Please. Their CENTURIES of accumulated knowledge is STILL more credible than anything you lot have to offer.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Seek help.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    “Hey, it’s a flavor enhancer!”

    😉

  • Pope Hilarius II

    ONE question theists cannot answer:

    Where is the evidence?

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Just imagining Tessa Thompson helpless with laughter 😉

  • Raging Bee

    Is there any evidence that the planet was “seeded” at all?

  • Jim Jones

    > All intelligent beings EVER observed have been produced by another intelligent being.

    I’ve never seen humping one’s brains out as intelligent. Fun, sure. But no one ever said, “Look at the brains on that chick.”

  • Jim Jones

    > An ‘intelligent’ ‘being’ seeded this planet with intelligence, IN VARYING DEGREES.

    A passing alien parked his space trailer here and emptied his black water tanks, contaminating the planet with bio waste. Then evolution took over.

    Interesting idea.

  • Aniko Almasi

    Dear Godless Mom, I was very surprised by your answer to Q 7. The God I know is anything but “a hateful and vengeful creator.” God is pure LOVE, nothing proves it more than the sacrifice of his son, Jesus. Try reading the New Testament, you would be amazed of the love, the grace, the abundance, the mercy God intends for all humans. I truly wish (and pray for it) that you experience it one day the way I do it every single day, not just on happy days but in the midst of sorrow and pain. I wish you all the best. With love, Aniko

  • Raging Bee

    What, you think we’ve never read the NT before?

  • Until then, there are millions of examples in evidence of intelligence being created by intelligence.
    I’ll call you out on that particular assertion. Produce an acceptable range of such examples for our enlightenment!
    (Citing the Act of Reproduction as such an example is not acceptable.)

    The FIRST dictionary definition of the word “intelligence” (other than the Military-Collection-of- Information alternative) is:
    1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
    “an eminent man of great intelligence”

    Human beings are not the sole lifeforms in possession of this attribute since lesser animals do display such abilities, and have been shown to “pass on”, or teach, such skills to their close companions, or to their immediate offspring. Usually these skills are displayed in regard to Food Gathering, and includes such form of life as:
    ☻ aquatic mammals constituting the infraorder Cetacea,
    Parrots, and the corvid family of crows, ravens, and jays,
    ☻ the great apes,
    ☻ Rats and mice.

    Solo Dolphin Filmed Hunting With ‘Net’ Made of Mud
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/07/dolphin-animal-marine-mammal-hunting-video-news/

    How humpback whales catch prey with bubble nets
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624083516.htm

    Study Documents Tool Use in Parrots
    https://www.wideopenpets.com/study-documents-tool-use-parrots/

    Bonobos use a range of tools like stone-age humans
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27852-bonobos-use-a-range-of-tools-like-stone-age-humans/

    Rats Can Be Smarter Than People
    https://hbr.org/2015/01/rats-can-be-smarter-than-people

    Rats are capable of driving tiny cars, researchers found. It eases their anxiety.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/10/24/rats-are-capable-driving-tiny-cars-researchers-found-it-eases-their-anxiety/

  • Lets not have arguments about audio, and hi-fi.

    Still, I’m suggesting that my Pioneer SX-SW100 subwoofer (sitting to the television’s RS-Front Corner) should exhibit superior value for the expenditure in the 25 Hz to 1.0 kHz audio range over the course of 12-13 years of faithful service.

  • Yet you, Graham Alarms, seem to be the sole advocate of this planet-seeding operation?

    Can YOU cite any evidence for this event – this Panspermia hypotheses of yours?

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    So you are still failing to define intelligence as you are using it in this argument. What are the key elements that you feel lead to the ‘conclusion’ that there has to be a seeder of intelligence
    Why do you think that intelligence is not just an evolved advantage?

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    oh, your one of those micro / macro types, please explain how the universe knows to stop changing at the point where individuals from a source species can no longer produce viable offspring, i assume it will have something to do with your imaginary space wizard.

    The evolution is a fact, as you say, you are setting arbitrary boundaries on it because reality does not conform to your ideology

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    you don’t need to define your mother in law, she is a real person, you can point at her, physical evidence of her existence is presumably available, your wife for example.

    Ok lets look at your method,

    and we fail on the first step

    ‘intelligence seems to always be produced by a preexisting source of intelligence’
    you have no evidence of this, what you have is an opinion, so the first thing you need to do is substantiate this statement before you can proceed with your analysis. Now we know that evolution is a thing (yes ‘macro’ evolution, the scary kind that dosn’t require a sky wizard) So we accept that we evolved from other less complex beings, in fact we are almost certainly all descended from a first single entity, something more primitive than even modern viruses and hence i would propose not capable of being defined as intelligent in any way

    So your premise is flawed, intelligence does not have to come from intelligence it is a evolved characteristic. As your premise is flawed there is no need to look at the rest of your hypothesis as there is no way it can be correct (other than by complete accident, stopped clocks and all that)

    But lets pick off a few other high lights from the your ‘process’

    ‘performing an experiment [examining various examples of intelligent entities to determine if they occurred spontaneously or were produced by another intelligent source]’

    this cannot be done, given that all creatures on the planet are related then you have a test set of one, you cannot make any meaningful conclusion. If you can find life on another planet that started and evolved interdependently of earth then you can potentially start making comparisons.

    ‘Until a single instance of spontaneous intelligence formation (without preexisting intelligent input) is observed’

    you are living in it, the world was once populated with only single celled life forms and now contains the internet, clearly at some point there was a shift from ‘not intelligent’ to ‘intelligent’ however given you are looking for a monkey suddenly quoting shakespear as opposed to the gradual combination of multiple evolutionary advantages to produce the emergent ability of ‘intelligence’ your search is likely to be a long and fruitless one.

  • Raging Bee

    Dictionaries are not scientific publications; they just describe the meanings people assign to words.

  • Raging Bee

    His blither-points have the same fatal weakness as Dembski’s “information theory”/”complex specified information” blither-points: failure (or inability) to define his terms (in this case, “intelligence”) precisely enough to base any coherent theory or conclusions.

  • Raging Bee

    Really? Was her baby born with any “intelligence” comparable to hers?

  • Raging Bee

    Yeah, just like it’s possible to walk from Arlington, VA, to Washington, DC (“microwalking”); but not from Arlington to Baltimore, MD (“marcowalking”), right? I mean, no one knows of anyone walking from Arlington to Baltimore, so that means it can’t happen, right?

  • Jezebel’sOlderSister

    Oooh! I LOVE this game!

  • Jezebel’sOlderSister

    Actually, there is an example of evolution happening under our eyes: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124873-these-fish-are-evolving-right-now-to-become-land-dwellers/
    There is a species of Blenny that appears to be in the process of evolving into becoming land dwellers.

  • abb3w

    See, the thing is, technically every single living thing is a transitional form.

    Only those living forms that will reproduce. Extinction is an alternative to evolution. (“Vote Giant Meteor of Death in 2020!”)

    That said, it looks like this is “10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer”… to the satisfaction of the theist net wit asking the questions.

  • abb3w

    Cue XKCD #154.

  • abb3w

    Also, it appears Nothing is a thermodynamically unstable state.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Well, aren’t YOU *spayshul*.

    Been there, done that, deprogrammed the supernatural foolery.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    LOL. But I can’t stand the scent of vanilla, after a mishap at the warehouse involving a forklift & a half pallet of vanilla yogurt & my ending up looking like some star in a porn film……

  • Lord Backwater

    1 Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s questions?

    No, and I’m not sure who does. Science is the way to answer questions of epistemology, but some questions fall under aesthetics and so science is simply not appropriate. I will point out that religionists have claimed to have answers to epistemological questions which have been disproven by science, so bleep them.

    5 What is the origin of life?

    So after dissing science, they want to bring up a question for which science actually is appropriate. ‘kay then. We are learning more about the origin of life by applying science all the time. By applying religion, not so much. Single reaction mixture can produce all four RNA bases

    6 Where does our morality come from?

    I would add that to the extent that we share moral values with others, our shared evolutionary history must take some of the credit. Is killing and eating your mate justifialbe after mating? No if you are human, possibly yes if you are a mantid. (i.e. the argument from ‘should have read more science fiction before making up silly questions’)

    7 If you had evidence of god, would you become a Christian?

    Silly person, have you forgotten that many theists are not Christian? Do you really think it is just a binary choice between Christianity (your brand, of course) vs. atheism?

    Return question for the person who wrote these:

    11 Deep or Derp?

  • Lord Backwater
  • Lord Backwater

    God is pure love? Try reading the Old Testament. You’re not an Amalekite, are you?

  • Lord Backwater

    Including that “It’s knowledge base far exceeds ours” etc.

  • Lord Backwater

    Maybe the gods from all religions is the same god, but human bias make them seem different…

    Maybe, maybe, maybe. You acknowledge that God is unknowable, and then you claim to know all about Him. Please stop it.

  • Lord Backwater

    You say sand is “future rock formations.” I say sand is “past rock formations.” To-may-to, to-mah-to.

  • Lord Backwater

    A former GF said something about religion bringing people together. Sure. It brings Jews and Muslims together in Palestine. It brings Protestants and Catholics together in Northern Ireland. It bring Sunni and Shia together in Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. It brings Muslims and Hindus together in parts of India. Etc.

  • Lord Backwater

    Something about laden swallows.

  • Roger Peritone

    And of course, the comments for that video are turned off.

  • Roger Peritone

    Quote:
    “All intelligent beings EVER observed have been produced by another intelligent being”

    Yeah…except for your god, no doubt, right? Special pleading.

  • Jane Ravenswood

    yes, it always brings them together with bombs and bullets to show that the other is “wrong” in their make believe.

  • se habla espol

    1) The alleged ‘definition’ of god is not usable, since t’s not definite, and it fails to give enough specifics to be able to distinguish a god from a non-god.
    2) Which god might that be (or which gods might those be)?
    3) Again, how do you know?

  • se habla espol

    Befcause, since we were not making claims, but you were, it is your burden and we have none.

  • se habla espol

    No, your claim the there is evidence is not evidence itsefl. You made a specific universal claim, as if it were meaningful and well-dined. It’s your burden to provide evidence that pertains to that claim and, if challenged, show (possibly with evidence) how it actually pertains. One of the challenges you are likely to face is the same one where your ‘god’ argument fails, the absence of definition of ‘intelligence’ sufficient to reliably, objectively, and repeatedly make an empirical distinction between ‘intelligent’ and not ‘intelligent’. Absent such a definition, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and neither can we.

  • se habla espol

    So the fact that many plant species evolved the characteristic of differential growth, inhibited by direct sunshine, somehow makes them ‘intelligent’. Do you have a usable definition of ‘intelligent’ to make your claim meaningful?

  • se habla espol

    Is there need for such “proof”?

  • se habla espol

    It’s turtles all the way down…

  • se habla espol

    The prodigious evidence all around me is ambiguous, and not sufficient to0 support one thesis or the other. It takes a bit of thought to see the logic fallacy in the creationist thesis, though: special pleading, that the creationist thesis is not universal.

    The non-abrahamic (non-Judaic/Christianist/Islamic) theses do not require any special pleading, just the known, observed everyday workings of biochemistry

  • se habla espol

    You’re making a specific claim, and claiming evidence for it. We’re looking to some means of interpreting the evidence you claim as evidence in favor of the thesis you propose. It doesn’t fit.

  • se habla espol

    When has DNA ever been observed to replicate itself, rather than being replicated by the collection of enzymes in its environment?
    You seem to be now claiming, in your misunderstanding of reality, that the blind workings of biochemistry somehow constitutes ‘intelligence’. Would you care to explain how this works?

  • se habla espol

    Intelligence has evolved, over the millennia: those populations where there are genes and things that generate intelligence have a better reproduction characteristics than equivalent, competitive populations without those genes. Intelligence, when defined by a useful definition, appears to be just an emergent property of certain neurological systems, nothing more, nothing less.

  • se habla espol

    No, but it’s infinitely better that your arguements, all of them so far.

  • se habla espol

    Why would Jim Jones be required to put forth a serious argument, when you refuse to do so?

  • se habla espol

    It is as clear as your arguments.

  • se habla espol

    You have assigned to yourself the burden of providing sufficient evidence that this planet was seeded and that it was some kind of gods that did it, not some non-gods.

  • se habla espol

    Your demand to “prove otherwise” is rejected, since it’s inherently nothing more than an illegimate attempt to shift the burden of proof.

  • se habla espol

    Kit’s challenge was to prove your universal claim, which cannot be done by example. Well, exhaustion of examples would work if you manage to somehow include the ‘root of the tree’, but you’re not going to give them, just claim them.

  • se habla espol

    A sufficient definition of ‘god’ allows the readers to reliably, empirically , repeatedly discriminate between a ‘god’ and a not-‘god’ with no guesswork, no handwaving, and no unknowable conditions.

  • se habla espol

    Occam’s razor, applied to this argument, says that intelligence arose by the natural, blind workings of biochemistry. Occam’s razor discards creators, gods, Johnny Appleseed critters, and such unneeded factors, since a perfectly reasonable explanation exists without them.

    Since intelligence, by definition, cannot exist in isolation, the ‘seeding’ conjecture fails prima facie.

  • se habla espol

    I would have no problem defining my MiL, by giving certain PII sufficient to distinguish her from all other phenomena of the universe: she was a female person, which is all the doxxing of myself I’m to do.
    I could feel sorry that you and your wife know so little about her mother, but I’m not gullible enough to fall for anything you’ve posted so far.

  • se habla espol

    Science is, by definition, a collection of understandings, known as ‘theories’ of all available evidence, directly or indirectly. It is perfectly valid to call such an understanding a ‘story’, if one wishes, but it still must explain all the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution does that. Creationism fails to do that. Your Johnny Appleseed conjecture fails to do that. Your “intelligence comes only from intelligence” conjecture fails to do that.

  • se habla espol

    I would accept the words of those scientists who show that they have factored in all available evidence; those supported by theory (ToE, ………….etc, ) rather than hypothesis (Dark Matter). Absent any theory, I accept that the Climate Scientists cannot accurately forecast just how many years Miami or New Orleans or London have before they’re lost. What’s fickle about actual scientists operating within their expertise?

  • se habla espol

    That may be true for you, as a religioso, but it’s false for me. I accept that I am secondary to reality, that my “worldview” must be subject to change a more is known about reality. That is the humility that distinguishes sciences and scientists from the arrogance of religions and their marks.

  • se habla espol

    Credible is in the desired worldview of the beholder, whenever the beholder is beholden to a religious worldview. The arrogance of the reliosi makes any conflicting reality not credible.

  • se habla espol

    In any population (which is what evolution works with, not just with individuals), it’s inevitable that some individuals will get eaten or will fall. That’s natural selection.

  • Raging Bee

    11 Yes.

  • Raging Bee

    ALL ONE! ALL ONE!

  • 1. Do you really believe that science is the only answer to all of life’s questions?

    No, Some of life’s questions are philosophical, sociological in addition to empirical. There are different types of questions and different types of knowledge. The question shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific methodology and the reliability of the the scientific method to explain reality. The scientifc method has been the most successful method to determine what is factual about reality but there are instances where science is unable to either provide an answer (purely philosophical question) or does not have a sufficient evidence for a conclusion, yet. The supposition that a unknown deity is an explanation for any gap in knowledge is illogical and continues to be disproven by the scientific method as we learn more as a species.

    2. Why do atheists care if people worship god?

    Thomas Jefferson, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” This accurately describes the position of most atheists. It only matters when people force their beliefs onto others through either forced adherence (government sponsored public prayer) or legislation forcing their subjective beliefs on to others (restricting gay rights, or female reproductive rights). Subjective morality based upon a subjective belief is not a valid method justification to limit the rights of others.

    3. Can nothing create something?

    The question shows a lack of understanding as most astrophysicist do not believe that there was nothing. There was a singularity that contained all energy and matter.

    On the other hand the is zero evidence that a deity created space, time, energy and matter from nothing which is the position of religion. Where did your deity get the materials to create everything and how exactly did he do that so that the observed laws of physics are not violated.

    4. How do you know that god doesn’t exist?

    I don’t know. But all of the evidence points the conclusion is there is no requirement for a deity. How do you know that the Hindu god’s do not exist?

    5. What is the origin of life?

    Science has possible explanations but nothing conclusive, so I don’t know for certain but I am comfortable in not knowing for sure. The answer will come from more scientific study.

    6. Where does our morality come from?

    Our morality comes from our evolution as a social species much like our closest cousins in evolutionary development. We developed compassion and empathy as we lived in close proximity to others of our species. Thus the instinct for individual survival extended to our immediate family and then to larger social groups. This create morals and ethics designed to reduce the harm of individuals and the social groups as a whole. As our ancestors moved from agrarian societies to living in cities it became necessary for the societal good to codify the morals and ethics as law and social norms. That is why laws against murder and stealing existed hundreds if not thousands of years before the Israelites codified those laws and social norms to their society when the 613 commandments were created. There is no moral or social norm that is unique to Christianity nor is there any evidence that our morals came solely from Christianity.

    7. If you had evidence of god, would you become a Christian?

    Evidence for which god? If it was evidence for a Hindu god or for Allah should I not become a Hindu or Muslim. I would re-evaluate my belief dependent upon the evidence presented.

    8. If evolution is real, why are there no transitional forms in the present?

    Really? Compare the transitional fossils of the current dog species to their ancestors the wolf. Or the horse to the current horse. We have transitional forms all around us if you were curious and wanted to learn about science and reality.

    9. Do you live according to what you believe or do you live according to what you lack in belief?

    Actually I live according to my humanist worldview. That does mean that I live not expecting that a deity will solve my and societies problems. Only humanity can solve our problems and the sooner people realized this the better. This is also one reason that I oppose people worshiping deities or supernatural for which their is insufficient evidence.

    10. If god exists, will you not lose your soul when you die?

    Which god? There is no evidence for a soul or that life continues after death. I do not have a memory prior to my birth and have zero expectation that I will exist after my death.

  • You son and daughter-in-law had sex. They did not build a child out of spare parts so they did not create anything. Biology and chemistry is how your grand baby developed with the chemical compounds that make DNA creating proteins necessary for it’s development. That same chemical DNA is what will determine the child’s intelligence which has evolved overtime. The child could be more intelligent or less intelligent than the parents since it is a characteristic determined by the chemical DNA process.

  • a r tompkins

    and you think you’re “intelligent” because…???

  • oakchar

    Hey Courtney, I like your answer to question 7. I’m an atheist when I’m rational, mad at God when I’m irrational, but if God really does exist I wouldn’t worship him either. He’s a jerk!

  • It doesn’t beg the question, it raaises the question. “Begging the question” is a specific kind of logical fallacy also known as “petitio principii” (look it up). I get so sick of having to type this over and over again because people don’t know what begging the question means.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    Hilarious, the video with “Questions atheists cannot answer” has comments disabled.

  • Cubist

    Is intelligence only ever created by intelligence?

    Can you provide any examples of intelligence, where the origin of said intelligence if known, and said origin is intelligence?

  • John Crawford

    Prove the opposite!
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    Evolved from what?? Scientists cannot begin to create the smallest life, even having a pretty good idea of the conditions they believe existed to do so. Where is the transitional form of a butterfly? A dog?
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    O’Hare was a historian? Nope, nor a Doctor of anything. So her opinion of the treatment of atheists is merely that, an opinion.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    Oddly, the wall is being built; negotiations with NK ongoing; regulations reduced; judges nominated. Where is Trump not doing his job?
    Semper fi

  • Merrit

    Hello Kyllein,
    As a born again Christian, I do like your responses, because they show you are thoughtful.
    I just have one question on number 3. How does the Big Bang theory show that things can come into existence out of nothing? I know that is the theory, but how does the theory demonstrate that there was no preexisting, immaterial cause outside of time and space?
    And also, if we were to believe such a thing, it seems it would be contrary to a very well established scientific law of cause and effect.
    If one were to deny the law of cause and effect, then we might think anything we see at any place could have just came into existence without a cause.
    It seems it is much more reasonable to believe that all effects have a cause (since our entire experience supports this) than it is to believe that anything came come into existence without a cause (since no one has ever observed such a thing [no one observed the universe come into existence without a cause]).

    Thanks,
    Merrit

  • Congressive

    There is a scientific, mathematical definition for morality. It’s called the Nash equilibrium. Grossly oversimplified: Groups of people, reindeer, bacteria, etc who choose what is best for the individual at the expense of the group, die out. Groups who choose what is best for the group while sacrificing the individual die out. Groups who choose what is best for the individual AND the group thrive. The moral choice in all things is the choice that benefits both the individual AND the group.

  • Questioner

    If you are a kind person, then I do not care what you believe. If you are not a kind person, then I do not care what you believe.

  • Questioner

    Making up fictional characters like Gods and Devils to explain things has a 100 percent failure rate.

  • Questioner

    How is it known that God does not exist? Because the very definition of a God is self contradictory, like a 3 angled square in Euclidean geometry.

  • Questioner

    Morality comes from reason. There is rational morality. As soon as a reason is given for a moral claim a person is in rational morality. Not just any old reason for a moral claim will do. It has to be a maximally accurate and maximally reliable reason in order to qualify as rational. Note that accuracy and reliability is objective and cross cultural, as is science.

  • Questioner

    Something cannot come from absolutely nothing. Even a quantum state is a physical state.

  • Questioner

    The very idea of ALL powerful is self contradictory, like a 3 angled square. The all powerful being cannot make an object so heavy he cannot move it. If he makes the object, then there is something he cannot do, move it. If he can move any object he makes, then he cannot make such an object. Yet a mere human can go to the gym and put more weight on the bar than he can move. A mere human can do what the supposed all powerful cannot do.

  • Questioner

    Why do theists care if people worship gods?

  • Questioner

    The bible god mass murders the human race (flood) and infinitely tortures billions.

  • Questioner

    Therefore your pretend god is no smarter than the people who made him up.

  • Questioner

    In the beginning something came from nothing. Everything comes from god. Therefore god is nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. God is nothing. Therefore nothing comes from god.

  • Questioner

    In the beginning something came from nothing. Everything comes from god. Therefore god is nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. God is nothing. Therefore nothing comes from god. So there.

  • Questioner

    Just study up on human evolution.

  • Questioner

    Obviously you know nothing about evolution.

  • Questioner

    The fickle scientists created your computer. Why are you using it?

  • Questioner

    If it is a scientific definition, they it is disprovable.

  • Questioner

    Your belief is as invalid as any other. All you need to do is make a specific prediction that is verified as true. Which you cannot. No Noble prize for you. Even bacteria organize into groups to get food and protect themselves.

  • Questioner

    Even psychologists have trouble defining intelligence. What is your definition?

  • Questioner

    So where are they? Produce even one.

  • Questioner

    Supernatural being is a contradiction in terms.

  • Questioner

    What does seed mean?

  • Questioner

    The chemicals needed for life have been found in interstellar space and in stars. All that is needed is for them to be combined by accident and life with “intelligence” will arise.

  • Raging Bee

    …or something…

  • Questioner

    Scientists have already created cells that reproduce in the lab. Biotechnology is ahead of you.

  • Questioner

    There is an unbroken continuum from chemicals to cells etc. Where is the line that separates nonintelligence from intelligence?

  • Questioner

    All you are doing is defining anything that happens as intelligence. Better to just say motion comes from motion per the conservation of momentum.

  • Questioner

    Seeding and intelligence need to be measurable to be called scientific.

  • Questioner

    I like the part where all believers in their disappearance disappear. The sooner the better.

  • Questioner

    Nothingness cannot be stable or unstable because there is nothing to be such.

  • TNflash

    Examples of intelligence developing are all around you. The simple fact that Monarch’s learned to migrate to avoid cold weather is an example. Or birds that place objects on the water to attract fish they can catch easily for dinner? Intelligence evolves because we are lazy, want to eat for energy, and want to procreate and mostly to be comfortable.
    Everything is looking for the easier way. I do believe mankind got a boost from generic engineering but why? It has to be because aliens were looking for a way to make their lives easier and better even if that meant modifying humans to do their work. It is as basic as bacteria migrating to a shaded part of a petri dish to avoid a bright light shining on the other side of the dish or fish that go to deeper water during the day to stay cooler in summer.

  • TNflash

    They are more “intelligent ” than the plant species that did not evolve and flourish. Intelligence is relative and it grows and advances. Slowly at first an then it builds on what was already learned to becomes smarter still.

  • se habla espol

    They might be “intelligent”, whatever that might mean, but they are certainly no more intelligent.

  • Geoff Benson

    As soon as you succeed in defining nothing it ceases to be nothing and becomes something. In short, the word ‘nothing’ in the context that it is used ‘something from nothing’ is meaningless.

  • Geoff Benson

    Yes and no. There are biological methods whereby reproduction takes place, and offspring will largely be similar to the parents, though not identical. However, birth gives rise only to potential intelligence, which develops only over time. Some low intelligence people give birth to highly intelligent offspring, so it’s much too simplistic to say that intelligence is only derived from intelligence.

    In evolutionary terms I suppose what you say makes a certain sense, as more complex life forms from simpler ones, but I don’t think this is your point.

  • Geoff Benson

    Yes there is overwhelming evidence (I don’t like the word ‘proof’ outside of pure mathematics).

  • Geoff Benson

    You are joking!

  • Geoff Benson

    Occam’s Razor actually removes the need for god, as you then introduce an infinite series of causes. Oh, and ‘uncaused first cause’ doesn’t work.

  • Geoff Benson

    I replied in similar vein; didn’t notice your comment.

  • Geoff Benson

    Individual scientists are irrelevant, it’s the consensus of scientific thought that matters. For example, there are odd scientists here and there who reject climate change theory, but they are irrelevant. The ‘consensus’ says differently.

  • Geoff Benson

    There’s an old saying ‘better to stay quiet and risk being thought a fool, than to speak and so have it confirmed’.

    You may disagree with the overwhelming evidence for evolution, but to suggest that there is none is just stupid, plain stupid. Are you as big a fool in real life as you suggest here?

  • Kyllein MacKellerann “

    Humans need to name things, usually so they can describe them clearly. Making a natural process into a “God” is one such activity. Is it divine? Maybeso, Maybeno, but it does describe it pretty well. My main disagreement with total Atheists is this: Declaring there is no God is as prone to failure as declaring there is a God: We simply do not know enough to make such a declaration. Maybe our universe is a cell in a divinity’s posterior or maybe our whole existence is a massive computer actualization. We. Do. Not. Know. Period. For me, a “God” is an observed process that may or may not be divine, but it needs a name so I can actualize it in my own mind. Does that make it a God or does that simply append a tag to it so I can find it again? Either answer works.
    Personally, if there is a God, I suspect its name is “Murphy, Lord of screwups” aka “the Bugger Factor” (CalTech) or the Perversity Quotient ot the local Universe. Why Murphy? Because Murphy’s effects are so pervasive everywhere:: If it can be screwed up, it will be (and usually at the worse possible time).;
    ‘Nuff sed…

  • Questioner

    That is not a new idea. Read up on science fiction. Since bacteria and virus’ can survive the radiation of out space, they could have floated in from elsewhere. All that you have to do is PRODUCE the beings who did the seeding and PRODUCE the seeds and your case will be proven and you win a Nobel Prize. Until then, case unproven.

  • Questioner

    It was on 60 minutes 10 or 15 years ago.

  • John Crawford

    Well, that’s nice.
    Semper fi

  • Damien Priestly

    It is a a fallacy to say “Big Bang theory show that things can come into existence out of nothing”…

    Nobody can presume the universe came from “nothing”…we just don’t know — certainly it is not impossible that the matter and energy that makes up the universe always existed in one form or another.

    And this whole concept of coming into existence without a cause — only leads to an infinite number of potential causes…natural causes, multiverse theories, etc. Sure, we can’t rule out Yahweh waving a magic wand to create a universe…But that has to compete with the infinite number of other possibilities. And if there is a God or deity…what “caused” it to come into existence?

  • A bit off-topic, but since we all seem to value science here…
    Since kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy, how hard would I have to punch a chicken to cook it?

  • Shirl Hopkins

    he is only being president to the idiots who voted for him

  • Jim Jones

    Not even to them. Any benefits they perceive are happenstance, not planned. He tells them what he wants them to believe and they swallow it unquestioningly.

    I’d like to hear some Trumpanzees list the benefits they got from the billionaires’ tax cut.