Hello All,
Sorry I haven't posted in a while, between running and schoolwork I've been busier than normal, so here's a new post.
So, SJ Thompson, a religious apologist, specifically Christian, has posted 5 questions for atheists, this post is from May of last year, but I just found it today perusing the black hole of doom, gloom, and depression that is the internet.
So her first question is, "So, why do even individualists know that we ought to help the weak, feed the poor, and be honest, humble, just, cooperative, empathetic, forgiving and loving? Why is it that all societies, regardless of their practices, know what we ought to do? Where did we get this moral compass?"
My answer is a quote from the Greater Good Magazine run by UC Berkley, "We are so used to empathy that we take it for granted, yet it is essential to human society as we know it. Our morality depends on it: How could anyone be expected to follow the golden rule without the capacity to mentally trade places with a fellow human being? It is logical to assume that this capacity came first, giving rise to the golden rule itself. The act of perspective-taking is summed up by one of the most enduring definitions of empathy that we have, formulated by Adam Smith as “changing places in fancy with the sufferer" (De Waal, 2005). The merely provides context for the actual explanation, which is that it actually benefits us by prolonging our genes in the case of offspring, or in the case of being others are healthy and capable, it benefits us. This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest" (De Waal, 2005).
So the first question has been answered by an article explaining the origin of empathy, which I'll put a link to at the bottom.
The second question is, "What accounts for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus? Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Jesus’ time have all have indicated that Jesus’ tomb was found empty – and multiple sources have indicated that second class women made that important discovery. In fact, Paul stated that five hundred people witnessed Jesus over the next forty days after He rose from the dead. Many Biblical and extra-biblical sources have indicated that early Christians preached illegally in support of Jesus for decades, braving beatings, stoning, crucifixions, beheading, and being burned to death."
As for the tomb, the body could have been stolen by Christians, and that the Romans could have misidentified another individual as Jesus and Paul and/or the Apostles could have claimed it was Jesus for credibility.
The third question, "If an atheist’s position is that the universe is the product of chance and necessity (instead of the product of intelligence), how can he or she explain the fact that the universe is structured rationally, logically and with mathematical precision and predictability?"
First, most atheists state it happened by chance, not by necessity, secondly, my answer is a quote from Physics Central (link at bottom), "Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed." So this permits matter to spontaneously generate.
Her fourth question, "Larry Moran said 'According to what we know about the natural world, humans are not special in any way and life does not have a purpose.' Richard Dawkins said 'DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.' If atheists adhere to the belief that the purpose of human life is merely to procreate and survive, is it possible to determine that human life has any more value than animal life – since animals share the same basic purpose?"
The reason that human life has more value than animal life is that humans can only procreate with other humans presently.
Sorry I haven't posted in a while, between running and schoolwork I've been busier than normal, so here's a new post.
So, SJ Thompson, a religious apologist, specifically Christian, has posted 5 questions for atheists, this post is from May of last year, but I just found it today perusing the black hole of doom, gloom, and depression that is the internet.
So her first question is, "So, why do even individualists know that we ought to help the weak, feed the poor, and be honest, humble, just, cooperative, empathetic, forgiving and loving? Why is it that all societies, regardless of their practices, know what we ought to do? Where did we get this moral compass?"
My answer is a quote from the Greater Good Magazine run by UC Berkley, "We are so used to empathy that we take it for granted, yet it is essential to human society as we know it. Our morality depends on it: How could anyone be expected to follow the golden rule without the capacity to mentally trade places with a fellow human being? It is logical to assume that this capacity came first, giving rise to the golden rule itself. The act of perspective-taking is summed up by one of the most enduring definitions of empathy that we have, formulated by Adam Smith as “changing places in fancy with the sufferer" (De Waal, 2005). The merely provides context for the actual explanation, which is that it actually benefits us by prolonging our genes in the case of offspring, or in the case of being others are healthy and capable, it benefits us. This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest" (De Waal, 2005).
So the first question has been answered by an article explaining the origin of empathy, which I'll put a link to at the bottom.
The second question is, "What accounts for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus? Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Jesus’ time have all have indicated that Jesus’ tomb was found empty – and multiple sources have indicated that second class women made that important discovery. In fact, Paul stated that five hundred people witnessed Jesus over the next forty days after He rose from the dead. Many Biblical and extra-biblical sources have indicated that early Christians preached illegally in support of Jesus for decades, braving beatings, stoning, crucifixions, beheading, and being burned to death."
As for the tomb, the body could have been stolen by Christians, and that the Romans could have misidentified another individual as Jesus and Paul and/or the Apostles could have claimed it was Jesus for credibility.
The third question, "If an atheist’s position is that the universe is the product of chance and necessity (instead of the product of intelligence), how can he or she explain the fact that the universe is structured rationally, logically and with mathematical precision and predictability?"
First, most atheists state it happened by chance, not by necessity, secondly, my answer is a quote from Physics Central (link at bottom), "Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed." So this permits matter to spontaneously generate.
Her fourth question, "Larry Moran said 'According to what we know about the natural world, humans are not special in any way and life does not have a purpose.' Richard Dawkins said 'DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.' If atheists adhere to the belief that the purpose of human life is merely to procreate and survive, is it possible to determine that human life has any more value than animal life – since animals share the same basic purpose?"
The reason that human life has more value than animal life is that humans can only procreate with other humans presently.
The fifth question, " Why have so many atheists determined that the life of a fetus in a mother’s womb is less valuable than the life of his or her mother? What standard do they use to value human life?"
First, a fetus cannot and should not be defined as "alive" unless it is viable, because if the mother dies and the fetus isn't viable its death is inevitable. Second, the mother is more valuable due to the ability to presently generate new humans to replace those who die, as well as the sentimental value of the mother to those she is related to, the fetus has no such sentimental value. Lastly, I value human life based on created cultural, historical, scientific, or sentimental value, as a fetus has not made any contributions, it is less valuable than say, a leading geneticist pioneering genetic treatments for cancer.
So, in conclusion, five supposedly unanswerable questions have been answered.
Yours in Reality,
D
Moderate Liberal
Independent
LGBT+ Ally
Runner
Agnostic Anti-theist atheist
First of all, SJ is a fallacious asshat of an apologist, but granted, that doesnt discredit her questions.
ReplyDelete1. Our moral compass comes from the empathy developed through successful societies. Its both learned and evolved.
2. The empty tomb and visions of Jesus are explained by it being an exaggerated story, designed to be convincing.
3. The universe came into existence with forces acting on particals, which interact with each other, all of which are consistent. It finds balance and structure this way, and is predictable. We merely describe this with maths and science.
4. We merely assign value to human life, because we are human, but ultimately its subjective.
5. Its not just atheists who share this position. Further using an unproven holy book is just subjective too, all just to claim a human life value or the morality of the situation. We are actually in the same boat, but believers adhere to ancient writings of men about myths for answers.