And yet again.....

Came across these beauties at work the other day.  Enjoy.  http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

Everyone is a moral relativist, some of us are just honest about it.  Did you cut off your right hand when it caused you to sin as Jesus commanded? Pluck out an eye after checking out some hot toddy across the room? I know nothing of an “absolute morality” wherein an action is always right or always wrong regardless of situation, time period in question, context or motivations and outcomes. Certain moral values are seen throughout humanity in every religion and even among other primates (Do not murder, do not steal, do not practice sexual infidelity). As Thunderfoot pointed out, even piranhas refrain from killing other piranhas. One of the best measures I can find to determining the morality of an action is whether or not the underlying assumptions behind the action are true or false. Take the Holocaust, for instance. The Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust because of two underlying assumptions: 1. minorities, “deviants” and handicapped people were not fully “human.” 2. The continued existence of these groups represented a clear and present danger to human civilization. Therefore, the logical outcome was the “final solution.” Clearly, this is a flawed conclusion because the first two premises are demonstrably false. Is this a perfect system? No. But it is a lot more honest an evaluation than doing something “Because __________ says to.”

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

My “trust in science” is based on the fact that I don’t have to “trust" in science. 
Science demands evidence. 
Faith demands belief. 
Science demands fact-based, logically consistent answers. 
Faith demands belief despite the facts and despite logical inconsistencies. 
Science begs to be questioned. 
Faith begs the question. 
Science changes to account for new information. 
Faith ignores new information. 
Science screams “Here I am, come kick my ass, if you can!” 
Faith (in many cases) specifically forbids you from questioning it. 
Science takes nothing on faith, which is exactly why faith has nothing on science.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

No. A religious person accepts claims made for which there is no evidence other than the claim itself OR no evidence other than being in agreement with an old book of such claims. To accept a scientific study as valid, all one need do is accept the validity of the scientific method. If you accept the validity of the process by which the conclusions were arrived at, then you know two things: 1. If the conclusions are in error, then the error will be exposed by further application of the scientific process. 2. Even if no error is present in the in the conclusions, the conclusions are still subject to change in light of new information. This is why all scientific knowledge is still referred to as “theory.”

Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?

The human brain.

Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?

That would be a pretty remarkable occurrence indeed! However, it would also be suspicious. My first question would be this: How would I know that they didn’t know anything about me other than my first name? How do I know they’re not lying when they say that? What sort of control mechanism was in place to insure that they hadn’t done a little research on genealogy sites about me or knew and communicated with people that knew me?

You claim that you had such a thing happen to you and that you are smarter than the average person and therefore more difficult to fool and that we should take all of what you say as totally valid because of this. Well, I hate to point this out to such an obvious intellect such as yourself, but you have no way of showing what you claim to have happened actually happened the way you describe it. You claim to have heard tapes and that you know that the medium knew things he couldn’t possibly have known before hand and you have this mountain of evidence, but I’m unconvinced. What, other than your word, do we have, and why should we believe you? You say that scientific claims should not be regarded as valid unless “you have observed … or observed and interpreted the evidence for yourself” yet you expect us to accept as valid your claim because you heard a tape of something that sounded pretty convincing and you are (allegedly) smarter than the average person. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it.

Is absence of proof the proof of absence?

No, but if you are going to claim the existence of a god, goddess or hyper-intelligent shade of blue, then it is beholden unto you to back that claim up with something other than “I can’t show how this is true, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.”

What does the atheist position offer people?

It offers nothing but honesty.  It takes nothing from you, requires nothing of you and places no burdens upon you. 

I admit that Christianity has been the cause of great suffering for many people over the years, I also believe that it has been the cause of great happiness for many people over the years.

So has Scientology. So has Buddhism. So has Taoism. So has Islam. So has Zoroastrianism. So has Hare Krishna. So has Wicca.  The ability to bring happiness into people's lives is not a testament to the veracity of the claims made.  

Heroin addiction causes suffering, but also brings happiness to the user.  Temporary and illusory happiness, but happiness just the same.  Same with alcoholism, crack addiction, and prescription drugs.  Would you "rather take the good with the bad than take nothing at all" in those cases as well? 

When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true?

I start with the premise that we can know things. I go from there to the assumption that we can demonstrate and communicate what we know.  I will readily admit that either of these could be false...but we've gotten a helluva lot of stuff done by assuming that they are true.

If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?

I would simply ask why this particular book of allegories should be believed and accepted as the “one true word of god” as opposed to the hundreds of other religious (and non-religious) allegorical texts out there.

Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?

It’s not. 
What is important to me is that our society prize real knowledge over ignorance that disguises itself as real knowledge. 
What is important to me is that our government enacts legislation based on something other than someone’s interpretation of an ancient book. 
What is important to me is that we spend our time and resources on things that benefit everyone as opposed to doing things that are either ineffective, dangerous or that strip people of their basic humanity because someone’s religion says to.

Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

I have no evidence that they exist, but one can logically assume that they can.

If you are an atheist, I am going to require that you also do not believe in E.T.

By what right and under what authority do you require me or anyone else to believe or not believe anything?

And if you acknowledge that E.T. has not been observed but is likely to exist, I demand that you also acknowledge that God has not been observed but is likely to exist.

I don’t assert that ET is "likely" to exist because we simply don't know. ET could exist because if conditions conducive to life exist here and if life is a naturally occurring product of the universe, it is then reasonable to assume that if similar conditions exist elsewhere in the universe, then life can exist there as well.

Would you like me to assert that a god or gods could exist? Fine. A god or gods could exist, but I have found no good reason to believe that they do.  So by what reasoning do you conclude that a god can exist other than the plethora of wildly divergent claims of divine revelation and unverified (and unverifiable) claims of supernatural phenomena?

And if one god can exist, why not 20, or a hundred, or a billion?

As Christopher Hitchens once said, Even if you prove deism, that is the existence of a creator god, you still have all your work ahead of you.  You still have to prove theism, the existence of a personal god who cares about you and what you do.