Answers to Matt Slick's Questions for Atheists - Part 2

[@susansharp985]

EXCELLENT !!!!!

[@cmgvideo]

Many good points I haven't thought of before. Good job Steve.

[@radicalbacon]

Whenever someone says "God revealed himself," I think of the white beardy guy in a trenchcoat, holding it open. I may be slightly terribad.

[@eriksmith6097]

+radicalbacon There MUST be a Far Side cartoon of that, 'cos that's what I saw when I read your comment. ;-)

[@RamsesTheStone]

You hit the nail on the head on the morale questions when you said that morals have to change over time. I mean, if you're living in a tribal society and someone's a complete psychopath ( or sociopath or whatever, I don't know how to classify this... I mean a completely selfish person without any empathy) you basically HAVE to kill him to protect society and yourself from the guy. In today's society, we *can* try to study those people, keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, talk to them, try to understand and maybe help them. I guess that's why so many people are against the death penalty in today's society, because we don't *have* to kill a murderer for our own protection anymore, and the only reason would be feelings of wanting revenge.

[@nouthoozemans]

That was seven years ago. What would you say today?

[@donjx]

Many good observations here. Particularly the remarks about whether the world would be better off without religion.

[@Dragon227]

Very articulate and thoughtful answers. I believe exactly as you do. There are some questions I struggle with not due to my own convictions, but because of the convictions and beliefs of my friends whom I consider to be very good oeople. How do you maneuver someone you care about who asks you to pray for them during an upcoming surgery? A person who knows you're an atheist.

[@francoislacombe9071]

Morality comes from the necessity for social creatures to find a way to coexist peacefully enough to survive. It's a mental structure governing the perception of themselves and each other that evolved to satisfie that requirement. Ants probably have a moral code of their own, aspects of which could very well be appalling to us, just like they would probably be appalled by aspects of ours. But it serves their purpose well, and as such is just as valid as ours. The same could be said of every other social species. The only moral "absolute" is that if must sustain the viability of the society in which it exists. How it achieves that goal is up to the specific species.

[@HighwayMule]

+Francois Lacombe I am unconvinced by the bio-deterministic idea that 'survival of the species' is the ultimate goal of humanity. Survival instinct exist in the world of zoology, that is true, but we humans, who are self conscious and capable of abstract thought, must seek a greater and independent purpose of biological necessity. Because I've got bad news for you: our species is doomed, as is every other on our planet. Mass extinction of all terrestial life is very likely due to the physical changes of our star, the Sun. And even if we do manage to colonize other solar systems (which despite popular media depictions seems unlikely at this point due to great practical difficulty) the ultimate fate of the Universe is likely to be the Heat Death. Given enough time, there will be no more variation in the temperature of matter, no energy, no change, no life possible. So there hopefully be untold generations before that happens, but finally the curtain will fall on us, and we have to make best use of the time we have left. Perpetuation of the species in itself is futile in the end.

[@BillF1967]

I think Stuffy and Toby Benson should answer this questionnaire.

[@MarkArandjus]

Regarding the question of would the world be better without religion, I look at it this way. Religion is the chess board, the pieces are aspects of human nature (both good and bad). Religion tells us how people should apply their humanity. If you get rid of religion you unfortunately don't get rid of the shitty aspects of humanity. But on the plus side you don't get rid of the bad ones either. You do however gain freedom to decide for yourself how to move the pieces.

[@Alessandro-B]

Ok, sorry to interrupt you at 0:21, but I'm going to attempt a prediction. A couple of the questions are basically the same question , but with different words?

[@robertmiller9735]

+Alessandro B Of course. One of the standard tricks, y'know.

[@ahouyearno]

+Alessandro B i've read ahead. most of the questions are very badly phrased. they clearly have "correct" answers from a christian perspective. For example on this question 11, why do you deny god ... I quibble about the wording. I deny god in the same way Slick denies Thor. Denial implies I actually know he exists. But that's a gripe of mine.

[@Alessandro-B]

ahouyearno yep that's what I dislike about apologists. The use of incorrect language in order to trick.

[@ahouyearno]

Alessandro B i just finished writing my own responses, maybe I'll make a video, not sure yet. I wrote them because my answers are quite different from Steve's. There's no such thing as an atheist worldview. But the overall conclusion is dishonesty. These questions are easy but also ignorant. The answers don't matter to Matt Slick. And that's not a good attitude in life.

[@robertmiller9735]

Alessandro B Judging from my experience, I'd say they think a clever wordplay argument qualifies as evidence. All the way down to sun=Son level.

[@phillipsavage9325]

Kurt Vonnegut's Playboy interview has a great bit about the importance of community and the rise of communes in the 1970s, particularly those run by the "Jesus-freaks." Christianity is a great basis for a community, he says, but so are spaghetti dinners or orgies. Christianity is convenient, though, because so many people are already familiar with it. He thinks that the best communities would be composed of people who didn't have to think at all. He'd rather we all be crocodiles.

[@ashmckinlay1402]

at the end of the day respect and compassion trumps all. beliefs are not in themselves bad but it's the ideology and nationalistic feelings of belonging to a certain identity that can cause a disturbing 'us and them' feeling. I hope atheists (like myself) can remember that this applies to them as well.

[@a.g.m8790]

Would you rather your child be a good person because they're afraid of being punished or would you rather your child be a good person because they *WANT* to be.. that's my view on religion and morality

Yeah, I never understood if someone thinks God revealed himself to them, how do they know it's not the Satan messing with them? Do they think they're above Satan's influence?

[@Erik-yw9kj]

+Gábor Koszper I especially like this objection when thrown at the bible itself - how do we know that God is the good one and that Satan is the evil one? Well, the bible says so. And who wrote the bible? Well, God wrote it. Hmmmm! xD

+Erik They actually think that the a demon wouldn't disguise himself as God.

[@Erik-yw9kj]

Gábor Koszper I'm just saying, if *I* were an evil dictator god, I would write my holy book in such a way as to present myself in the best light possible in order to fool my adherents into thinking that they were doing the ultimate good in obeying my commandments. I guess it's a good thing I'm not an evil dictator god.

+Erik You can be whatever you want to be!!!

[@mikhem1962]

+Erik, how do you know you're not?

[@schrishzen]

Slicks go to with moral absolutes is: is it morally wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure? Considering we all agree that it's wrong or at least I haven't heard anyone say it's not, that's his proof that there is a moral absolute. How would you address that?

[@Troubleshooter125]

More predictable fare, for the most part, but I do have one point to make: I'm a firm believer in Matt Dillahunty's maxim about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. If christianity is redefined using that as a fundamental principle, is it really still christianity? The fact is that people serve others and help out and do other charitable work without any religious superstructure. Indeed, I can't think of a worthy activity which christianity (or any other religion) supports that couldn't be accomplished without christianity. So, can we do without it? Yeah, I think so.

[@ChibiGeeBee]

I've always figured that religion as we know it will slowly fade. Look at history- the majority religions have slowly moved from animism (everything is a god\spirit), to polytheism (there are many gods), to monotheism (there is one god), and now there's a certain growth of... (I don't know the word..) spiritualism(?)... (there are no gods, only souls in transit). Now, these patterns have, so far as I know, been in excistance for most of human history- It just seems to me, that the pattern of majority religion means we are slowly moving away from religion as we know it.

[@BassbaitGG]

11.I felt an instant disconnect. Like "oh shit, God's not real, I've always been thinking about him like a hypothetical, meaning I never really believed and have no reason to go on claiming I'm a Christian when I never really was" 12.Far, far, far, far, far better. 13.See 12. 14.No. I believe that it's intellectual dishonesty as an adult and psychological abuse as a kid. 15.Who cares? 16.Who... cares... 17.Whatever you want it to be, friend. As for me? My purpose in life is "who cares?" 18.uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh 19.from the goddamn tree of morals. Morality is too abstract of a concept to have an origin. It is interpreted in different ways, not just by humans, but also by animals. Animals have morality systems too. We are after all, *also* animals. 20.Absolutely not.

[@Nygaard2]

You really should try to dig up Robert Sapolsky's lecture about religion as a way for us to include instead of excluding the borderline mentally ill. Also, humanity would be better off without organized religion, simply because it is often not the reason for conflicts, but the motivation to make conflicts more violent than they needed to be.

[@dondoloparisi5041]

I think the world would definitely be better off without religion. Sure, we would find something else to fight about, but at least one of the major reasons (namely who has the coolest imaginary friend) would be of the table. And where there are "real" reasons for people to fight - like hunger, poverty etc. - those problems could be handled in a way more true-to-life so that maybe they could be solved one day. But I fear as long as religions mantle those problems or as long as they claim to be/have an answer to those problems, we will sadly not be able to solve them. Oh, and: good video, Steve. Looking forward to part 3!

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

I don't know about that. Maybe it's just me but I don't see a lot of people fighting wars over team Edward vs team Jacob. Okay sure, maybe there are still reasons but much fewer and much less powerful. Religion is strong stuff dude. Bad voodoo.

[@ChrisTheAspergerGuy]

It's true that religion is a human construct and that the world wouldn't be a perfect utopia without it, but it would certainly be a fuck ton better than it is. You have to remember that religion stumped our growth and maturity as a species. Had it never been invented, we would've matured a lot sooner and the world would be much closer to what it should be. Yes, we might have found other reasons to justify being assholes and idiots for a while, but humanity for the most part would've long grown past that shit by now without religion getting in the way. If religion had been written in ways that encourage people to strive for the world people like us want, then I'd happily accept that scenario too.

[@mistercroop]

Responding to your answer for the question of whether god must be known through the scientific method: it seems to me, using definitions of the supernatural as they stand, there are no conditions under which one may confirm omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence without being omniscient one's self. Even then how would one know their own omniscience to be a fact? If one is omniscient then one would know one's self to be omniscient, but then such status could be aped in ways indiscernible within a faux-ll-knowing perspective.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

I don't think it's sufficient to say morality is a human construct. Elaborate systems of morality, sure, if you can actually find a self-consistent one.

[@AZAZ-qb3io]

Question #11 seems odd in it's phrasing. "Deny his existence" seems to be vaguely implying that it exists, and an atheist is just acting as a denying a truth mindlessly. I'd say I agree with his non-existence. Do christians deny his non-existence?

[@ShinChara]

If we really want to limit the number of untrue things we believe, then we need to stop latching onto ideas just because they fit our own preconceived, comfortable narrative. There have been a number of dramatic incidences of violence motivated by religion, but anyone remotely knowledgeable about history should realize that most violence by far has been driven by open greed - in wars of imperial expansion, violence between political factions, or simple raiding of foreign lands for wealth and slaves. Religion's involvement in these activities is usually driven by the need of those responsible to justify their actions in the face of religious belief, to explain why they are killing and stealing when killing and stealing are a sin. If religion never existed, those questions simply wouldn't have been raised to begin with. Those who led their people to war would simply state that their conquests enriched their own nation, and their subjects would follow along for their own self-interest. This wouldn't have made the world better to any significant degree, if at all. It might have made it worse.

[@wolfwing1]

your making a mistake by saying that would all harm be gone? No, but a good chunk of it would be gone, why? Because religions have one thing over all other things and it's the biggest source of harm and problems, but they have it at the highest. authority. You can't argue easily against religious, but they have the truth from the ultimate source, and it's your word agaisnst the creator of everything, without religion alot of that goes away, you still have harm, but would the crusades, or hitler, or alot of other things be as easy to do without the call of, "God wants you to do this."?

[@adrienfourniercom]

all those philosophical and moral questions are very freightening. Where did the moral developpement of this guy stop? We all learn, even before kindergarten, that moral can't be absolute, that we have to use our reasoning to choose, to think. And the purpose for life? wtf? I never understand this formule "the sense of life". The religious folks realy live in another planet. Scary.

[@a-borgia4993]

The mental illness questions is a really bad one. So, Mr. Slick, how come these people are mentally ill? Who is in charge? Who designed them?

[@BrotherAlpha]

19 I disagree with you on this one. I define "Morality" as the set of rules needed for society to work, so humans don't get to decide what is and is not moral, reality does. If we decided murder was moral, it still wouldn't be, because if people were murdering other people, society would collapse. Granted, this is a very complicated discussion and it might be hard to determine where the edges of morality are, but being complicated isn't the same as being wrong.