Here's the original video:
He virtually guarantees that anyone who accept this challenge will contradict themselves. Of course, when you intentionally ask questions that have contradictory answers, that's pretty much gonna happen. Oh, well.
"This is a Challenge for all non believers."
Not really.
"1.How do you think life began?"
What
I think about how life began is irrelevant. The evidence as of now is
inconclusive. I don’t know. I’m fairly certain you don’t know, and i’m
fairly comfortable saying that whoever wrote your favorite version of
whatever bible you use didn’t know either.
"Does empirical science prove your answer?"
I’m
not sure how to employ empirical science to show that I don’t know
something. Maybe you can help me out on that one. As far as using it
to demonstrate that you don’t know, i’m not sure how to do that
either....except to say that if you did know, it’d be the scientific
discovery of the ages and instead of making Youtube videos, you’d be
publishing your results and collecting your Nobel Prize. As far as the
writers of your favorite version of your favorite bible are concerned,
empirical science can demonstrate that they were wrong about the age of
the earth, they were wrong about the moon being a light, and they were
wrong about the earth pre-dating the sun and stars. Based on that
alone, i’m fairly confident in saying that they probably didn’t know the
origin of life on earth either.
"2.Why has every civilization believed in a creator?"
Every civilization has not believed in a
creator. Some have believed in multiple creators. But that’s beside
the point. Belief in gods developed out of primitive man’s attempts to
understand the world using the limited perspective and amount of
information he possessed. As the first civilizations formed, these
beliefs were codified into the first religions. As civilizations
advanced and became more complex, so did the religions. What type of
environment a civilization was located in had a lot to do with the
religions that developed. In Mesopotamia, the flooding patterns of the
Tigris and Euphrates were violent and unpredictable. As a result, the
Mesopotamians worshiped tempermental gods that were prone to fits of
rage and frequently smote things (sound familiar?). The flood pattern
of the Nile, however, was predictable and not destructive. As a result,
the Egyptian gods were less emotional.
"3.What
types of government structures have been created from an atheistic
world view in the past? What positive ideals has atheism offered this
world?"
You
are talking about atheism as if it were an ideology. It is not.
Atheism is the rejection of the theistic positive claim. That’s it.
Secularism, on the other hand, is an ideology. If you are looking for a
government structure based on Secularism, look no further than the U.S.
Constitution.
"4.By what authoritative writer or principles do you live your life? Do you live by any standards?"
No
one’s writings make my decisions for me. I
think for myself, agree or disagree as I see fit with whoever I choose.
I live according to the knowledge that the planet earth is all we
have. If we screw up here, there’s nowhere else to go. If you don’t
like somebody, there’s nowhere else for them to go. So my principles
are this: we all share a collective responsibility to take care of this
place and get along as best we can, or we will all die.
I enjoy life and i’m pretty sure most people do...so there’s the incentive.
"5.In your opinion should religion be removed from public? If so where should it be tolerated?"
I
have no problem at all with religion being in public. I do have a
problem with one religion being endorsed or paid for with public funds
or given a place of prominence on public lands over other religions and
religious points of view.
"6.How did the universe begin?"
In a hot dense state....if you accept the Big Bang model.
"Can nothing create everything?"
This is a pretty damn stupid question. No, nothing cannot create everything and that’s not what the Big Bang model shows.
"What was the cause?"
Why
does there have to be a cause? What if the universe is a living,
self-aware entity that just decided one day to expand? What if the rules
that apply within space-time do not apply to space-time itself? If you
assert that the universe had to have a cause, then so did the cause.
Even if you special-plead an “uncaused cause” into existence, you have
no reason to assert with any degree of certainty what the cause is or
was. So to sum it up:
I
don’t know. I’m fairly certain you don’t know, and i’m fairly
comfortable saying that whoever wrote your favorite version of whatever
bible you use didn’t know either.
"7.Hypothetically
if you had to choose a religion what religion would you choose? Why
would you choose this religion? Would you tell others of your religion?"
All
religions are based on what amounts to the same evidence: statements of
faith from people who have allegedly encountered divine entities, which
are then ultimately taken on faith by believers. Having said this,
theologically it makes no difference what religion one chooses.
However, if one had to be chosen, I’d choose one that believed in live
and let live, practiced what it preached (no sense being hypocritical),
and didn’t require anyone to give money (why would a god need money?).
"8.How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity apart from intelligent intervention?"
“Irreducible
Complexity” is a fancy way of saying “I don’t understand how evolution
could have done it,therefore, it must’ve been magic!” It’s a gussied-up
argument from ignorance. There have been numerous videos and articles
made to answer your question for you (if you are legitimately interested
in an answer, which I don’t think you are), but the gist is this: Add a
part, make it useful.
"9.How can natural selection produce something that is a prerequisite for natural selection to operate?"
Natural
selection (like the other evolutionary mechanisms) is the process
through which life diversifies. it is not how life originated.. This is
why Darwin explained selection in a book called “Origin of the Species”
and not “Origin of Life.”
"10.Morality seems to change with the times in the atheist community why are morals so subjective within the atheist community?"
All
morality changes with the times. An atheist’s morals are no more or
less subjective than anyone else’s. The atheist simply realizes and
acknowledges this. Morality, in a sense, is a living thing. Like all
living things, it changes, adapts, and …. evolves.
"11.What
is the motive of freeing others from their belief in a God if they are
happy and content with their belief and dont hurt others?"
I’m
not out to “free” anyone of anything they are happy and content with so
long as they don’t harm others. But you see, in this country there are
a lot of people who are not content to be happy and content in their
beliefs...they want everybody else to be happy and content in their
beliefs as well. They also want to make laws and policies for everybody
based on their beliefs. I will also say this: beliefs spawn
assumptions and assumptions spawn actions. Dangerous beliefs have a
tendency to spawn dangerous assumptions and dangerous actions.
"How can you tell who is not content and happy?"
Ummm....they kinda went over that in kindergarten, didn’t they?
"And why the main focus on Christianity?"
Quick quiz: What’s the number one religion in America?
"12.
If humans evolved from Apes why have the transitional species gone
extinct but yet the Ape and Man still exist? Why the middle gap?"
Because
humans didn’t evolve from apes. Humans are apes. Advanced apes, but apes none the less. We share common
ancestry with all the other apes. One pair of fused chromosomes is all
that separates your DNA from that of a chimpanzee. And as far as why
the transitional species went extinct, no one knows for certain.
Possibly something in the environment changed that it couldn’t adapt to
or it was outbred by its evolutionary descendants.
"13.
Can you give three examples where the narrative of Jesus and his
message would be a negative influence if what he said was true?"
Well,
there are two problems with that. One, we don’t know if Jesus existed
at the time and place described, if he was a composite character or if
he existed at all. The second problem is that we don’t know that
everything that was attributed to Jesus was something Jesus actually
said or did.
But,
assuming that Jesus existed and assuming that everything attributed to
him was something he actually said or did and assuming he meant exactly
what he said:
1.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother"
- Matthew 10:34-35
2. "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." - Luke 12:51
3.
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate their father and mother, wife
and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a
person cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26
Then
there's the whole fig tree incident in Mark 11:12-14, 20-21. Where
Jesus gets mad at a fig tree for not having figs on it …. when it wasn’t
fig season. So he curses and kills the fig tree in a fit of
rage....because it was a normal fig tree. Ummm...yeah, that totally
doesn’t sound cocoa for koo-koo puffs at all.
"14.Do
you think the world would be better if there was no belief in a God?
What if there were no rules or standards to that belief system?"
And
there you go assuming that the existence of rules and standards
necessitates the existence of a god. In fact, there are many Buddhists
who live with rules and standards and yet do not believe in a deity.
There’s also something called “Christian Atheists” who follow the (alleged) moral
teachings of Jesus but reject the existence of a god..
"15.Can you give five examples of Atheists being persecuted in America currently?"
Is five the “magic number” of atheists that need to be persecuted before persecution of atheists becomes wrong?
1.
Nicole Smalkowski was kicked off her Oklahoma public school basketball
team and harassed by students and teachers at her school after she told
her coach she didn’t want to pray with the team because she was an
atheist.
2.
Erik Brown of Baton Rouge has had his property vandalized and
destroyed, has been threatened with violence and punched in the face for
being an atheist.
3.
Damon Fowler of Bastrop High School in Louisiana opposed having a
prayer at his high school graduation. He sent a complaint to the
Superintendent, who cancelled the prayer. His name was then leaked. He
was physically threatened by other students, publicly demeaned by one
of his teachers, and thrown out of his house by his own parents.
4.
President George H.W. Bush once said of atheists: “I don’t know that
atheists should be considered citizens.” Commentator Michelle Malkin
has said that Atheists “Should be treated like trolls.” Now imagine
someone saying this about Jews, or Mormons, or Baptists. Would it be ok
then?
5.
Atheist and Secular students are routinely denied the right to have
school clubs and groups despite the presence of religious groups. When
they are allowed to have their club or group, posters advertising them
are routinely vandalized and group members are routinely harassed.
I could go on, but you only asked for five.
"16.Do you think the laws that govern America are for the most part just and appropriate?"
The laws themselves are, the enforcement of them is where the problem lies.
"17.Can
empirical science prove the missing link, big bang, or the abiogenesis
theories? If not why are they taught in schools today?"
Empirical
science doesn’t “prove” anything. That’s why we still refer to germ
theory, atomic theory and the theory of gravity. We always leave open
the possibility the new information can completely obliterate what we
think we know about things. Theories are models constructed using
scientific laws, logical reasoning, and the best available evidence.
When new evidence comes along, the theory needs to be modified to
account for it. If the old theory cannot account for the new evidence,
the old theory is discarded and a new one replaces it.
Now,
these are basic, fundamental scientific principles we are talking
about. Anyone with a proper high school education should know this.
The fact that you, a grown man, needs me to explain this to you really
calls into question the quality of education you received as a young
man.
"18.
Do you think if the story of Jesus was proven true that his
resurrection would be the greatest feat in human history? If not what
was greater?"
Yes,
i’d consider that one a hum-dinger for sure. It would also cause me
to question and re-examine the validity of all the resurrection stories
that have appeared in various cultures.
"19. What came first the chicken or the egg? What does evolution say?"
It
depends on which chicken you are talking about. If you mean one of the
hundreds of different breeds that humans have used the evolutionary
mechanism of selection to produce over the last thousand or so years,
then your answer is the egg. Two parents of different breeds made an
egg that produced a new breed of chicken.
If
you are talking about the wild chicken that was the first to be
domesticated, then i’d still have to say the egg because the
evolutionary predecessors to that chicken were laying eggs long before
that particular yardbird came onto the scene.
"20.What three things would you change if you were the creator of this world?"
1. I would go out of my way to not resemble something that didn’t exist.
2.
There would be no need for a Muscular Dystrophy Association, Autism
Speaks, an Association of Retarded Citizens, or child-sized wheelchairs,
hands-free speech devices, or leg braces..
3.
There would be absolutely no need whatsoever for a Children’s Cancer
Ward at any hospital anywhere. Furthermore, there would be no such
thing or need for a child’s coffin.
"21.If
belief in an afterlife is a naïve wish for people that are afraid of
death cant non-belief be a naïve wish for people that are afraid of
accountability to God after death?"
Well, let’s take a look at the fundamental underlying assumptions each one is based on.
Claim 1: "Belief in an afterlife is a naive wish for people who are afraid of death."
Fundamental Assumptions:
1. People fear death because they instinctively want to survive.
2.
People observed plants appearing to die in winter time “coming back to
life” in the spring, which led to a belief in a life after this one.
3.
Fearful people (with limited perspectives and a limited knowledge of
the world) who are told something they want to hear were (and still are)
more likely to be persuaded by charismatic “visionaries” and “prophets”
who tell fantastic stories about realities beyond this one and mystical
beings who determine our destinies.
Problems: None. All of these things can be shown to be demonstrably true.
Claim 2: "non-belief in an afterlife is a naïve wish for people that are afraid of accountability to God after death."
Fundamental Assumptions:
1. A reality beyond this one exists.
2. In this new reality, there resides a god
3.
This god made some rules for us to follow in our current reality and
holds us to account for our transgressions in the next reality.
Problems:
1. You cannot establish that a reality beyond this one exists.
2.
Even if a reality beyond this one exists, you cannot establish that a
god (or 2 gods, or a billion gods) exists in this “other”’ reality.
3.
Even if you special-plead a god (why just one?) into existence in this
other reality, you have no way of establishing that it is the god you
think it is, which means you have no way to differentiate your book of
divinely-inspired rules from anybody else’s.
So what are you left with? Hoping and wishing and dreaming....but little else.
Now which one sounds more like a naive wish?
"22.In
a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately
different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a herd of cattle? Are humans of
more intrinsic value?"
Life
as we know it is extremely rare in the universe (as far as we know).
From that perspective all life is precious. However, humans can do
things that a swarm of mosquitoes or a herd of cattle cannot. Therefore,
humanity wins.
"23.Do
humans possess the ability to feel love, affection, and empathy? If so,
explain how? Can it be explained without using the metaphysical?"
Yes.
Humans possess the ability to do these things. How? Well you’d have
to ask a behavioral psychologist or somebody who studies that sort of
stuff. And as far as it can be explained without invoking the
“metaphysical,” quite a few things that were once thought to be
explainable only through “metaphysical” means turned out to have a
naturalistic explanation that didn’t require invoking supernatural
mumbo-jumbo. Based on that alone, I feel fairly confident in saying
that such things can be explained without using the “metaphysical.”
"24.Who contributes more charitable services and financial resource to the worlds suffering and impoverished? Atheist or Theist?"
Well, now this is an unfair question given that theists are a majority (90%
or more) of the world’s population. My question is: given the immense
numbers and wealth and power that theists have possessed, why haven’t
they eradicated poverty and other preventable sources of human
suffering?
And
for the record, there are numerous charities that do immense good in
the world that are secularist, humanist, or unaffiliated with religious
groups, mandates or principles. DonorsChoose.org, Kiva, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty
International are just a few.
"25.What evidence would you need to prove that God existed and by what standard of evidence?"
Show me a god (any one will do).
Show me supernatural phenomena (have your god poof a unicorn into existence).
Have your god write his name on the moon.
Better
yet have your god miraculously heal every child at St Jude’s Children’s
Hospital in Memphis without the help of science, doctors, medicine or
radiation therapy.
Have
your god close down the Children’s Cancer Ward at the University of
Mississippi Medical Center because he has eradicated childhood cancer
with one snap of his fingers.
"Do you follow this same standard in all of your current beliefs?"
Yes.
I do. I demand that anyone who makes a positive claim back it up with
fact-based, logically consistent reasoning....myself included. My
question is: why don’t you? Why don’t you apply the same degree of
critical analysis and skepticism to the claims of the bible that you
apply to the claims of random Youtube atheists? Why don’t you demand
that empirical science “prove” Noah’s flood or talking snakes or bread
falling from the sky? Are you afraid to? If so, I don’t blame you. Fear
is one of religion’s most effective recruiting and retention devices.
