Evidence for God from Science

Hello everyone,
I'm here to share with you a little conversation that I happened to observe on a particular blog on Tumblr. The questioner was a Christian, whereas the blogger was the atheist, the blogger called himself a proponent of equal rights.
The questioner asked him how he could reconcile the idea of transcendental human rights, the value of human life, with his naturalistic worldview. I'll let you read the conversation.


Christian: |"hey just a question real quick, I know you're a materialist, I happened to notice that on your "about" section you say you're for "equal rights," I wanted to get your opinion on that. Do you think objective human values such as equal rights really exist? Or are you willing to accept that that's just your opinion, and equal rights don't exist...?
Because I don't really know how you can reconcile your materialism with the view that there are absolute human values that transcend the laws of physics and chemistry, that transcend the scrutiny of science.
If human values really don't exist, then we're really not all equal at all, are we? We're just dots on the evolutionary timescale, trying to make our way in the world, struggling against all our Darwinian competitors in the gene race, and so out the window goes the premise that we're equal. And really, with that premise goes the weight of your arguments against religion - in which you say that we should shun religion because it ends in bigotry and hatred against other people. What's your view on all this?"|

Atheist:

|"The ability to analyze our own thoughts makes us able to make moral decisions, if we analyze these thoughts outside of the influence of culture and tradition, we can ask ourselves why we hold biases about certain people, what fairness is, and what effect the way we treat others has on ourselves. This leads to various philosophical questions about what equality means, I’m sure the concept has evolved over time, but I feel our collective species has come far enough to transcend what is evolutionarily “programed” into us, I’ve read that what separates humans from other animals is this ability to analyze our motives, and we can use this ability to make decisions about what is right and wrong.

Add this to the fact that altruism is present in nature among animals, which shows that this is an evolved trait which is beneficial over-all to the species.

The two of these together along with the psychological need to “fit in” will eventually lead to equality within an advanced culture, so, I feel equality is a cultural phenomenon.

There will always be those who discriminate, and who are biased, just like there will always be those who have violent tendencies or even those who are mentally ill, but I feel that religion and the culture around it promote these biases, if things are going to change culture will need to change, and if the culture of religion were to change, my opinion of it would as well.

I suppose you could say that equal rights at it’s most basic is an opinion, but is one that people could come to outside of influences of religion or tradition, when they look at what is most beneficial to the survival of the species over all."|

Christian: |"Hello, sir, I was the anon who posed the question to you about your materialism and your equal rights views. I can't say I was entirely satisfied with what you gave me in return; I do hope you have a second to give your thoughts on my response. Here goes

'The ability to analyze our own thoughts makes us able to make moral decisions.'

I don’t really care, sir, why evolution says we think moral thoughts. I want more of a justification, a reason for morality than an explanation of moral behavior.
The point is is that when you take away the idea of equal rights in humans, all your morality arguments really lose their weight, i.e. an argument that we should assist homeless people because “it’s right” doesn’t make sense if homeless people have no moral equality with other, more well-off people. With equal rights of humans goes the value of human life. Your evolutionary competitors are no more than animals; thus, hurting them or not helping them can't possibly be “wrong” at all, no matter how much people call it “wrong.”
But equality must be a transcendental thing, because if it is not, then it can’t exist, not being material - can you put equality into a test tube? - and its existence is merely in our minds. And if that’s the case, then anyone can go around doing what everyone else says is “right,” but the truth is is that he has no real reason for doing it.
“If we analyze these thoughts outside of the influence of culture and tradition, we can ask ourselves why we hold biases about certain people, what fairness is...”
What is fairness? Why should one be fair? You see, once again you presuppose the existence of an immaterial standard of human life that makes us all equal. But this is precisely what your worldview can’t consistently accept!
'Add this to the fact that altruism is present in nature among animals, which shows that this is an evolved trait which is beneficial over-all to the species.'
Sir, please stop explaining the cause behind moral behavior to me, and tell me what makes it of any value. Tell me if right or wrong really do exist. I don’t want to know the evolutionary explanation behind why people THINK right and wrong exist, I want whether or not they do exist. Come on.
'There will always be those who discriminate, and who are biased.'
So?
How can discrimination and bias carry a negative connotation unless you carry with you the presupposition that we’re all equal? That human life has value, and that value is what discrimination and bias violate? But evolution denies that human life has value. It denies that we’re all equal. So how can you be an evolutionist and still carry the idea that we ARE equal, that our lives DO have value. According to you, we’re no more than overgrown germs. Do you see my point?
'I suppose you could say that equal rights at it’s most basic is an opinion'
So equal rights don’t exist? Then what what are you doing blaming religion for discrimination and bias? What equality do discrimination and bias break, when you just admitted to me that equal rights don’t exist?"|

Atheist: |"You are playing a “philosophical argument” game and I have a feeling that no matter what I say, you will not be satisfied with it.

My argument doesn’t lose any weight because it’s ******* to treat people like **** and limit their rights because someone feels they have some kind justification to do so, and no amount of word games or philosophical arguments are going to change my opinion of people who treat others like they are below them or treat other people like ****.

Even Christianity has it’s “golden rule”, give me a good reason outside of tradition or religion to treat someone who is not doing anything that actually affects you (besides offending your “moral” sensibility) like they are below you, you give ME a good compelling reason not to treat someone equal who is doing nothing to actually harm you.

This is a ridiculous argument, I’m sorry, I’m not trying to come off as an ***, but it aggravates me when someone wants to sit here and ask me why with my world view I believe in equal rights, I do because I’m not a ****, plain and simple, it’s things like this that make me want to answer these types of questions with, “Because **** you, that’s why”

Have a nice day."|

Is it just me or did the atheist guy sound desperate on his last reply? He didn't answer the questioner's point at all! He resorted to using foul language and insults to shut the theist up, because, I suspect, he was running out of responses. It's made even more arrogant and disgusting by the fact that the Christian seemed very respectful, continuously referring to the blogger as "sir." But some people take respect to be outdated, I suppose.
Anyways, what are your thoughts on the discussion? On the whole topic? What do you think about equal rights?

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:Hello everyone,
I'm here to share with you a little conversation that I happened to observe on a particular blog on Tumblr. The questioner was a Christian, whereas the blogger was the atheist, the blogger called himself a proponent of equal rights.
The questioner asked him how he could reconcile the idea of transcendental human rights, the value of human life, with his naturalistic worldview. I'll let you read the conversation.

Is it just me or did the atheist guy sound desperate on his last reply? He didn't answer the questioner's point at all! He resorted to using foul language and insults to shut the theist up, because, I suspect, he was running out of responses. It's made even more arrogant and disgusting by the fact that the Christian seemed very respectful, continuously referring to the blogger as "sir." But some people take respect to be outdated, I suppose.
Anyways, what are your thoughts on the discussion? On the whole topic? What do you think about equal rights?

I don't know about desperate, but no he didn't answer the question. So he's not quite there on the full implications of materialism, I can go mock a Christian who isn't well versed in theology, post the conversation on an atheist forum and get the same response of "theist desperation".

The Christian wasn't being overly respectful IMO, "sir" is a common way to annoy someone while acting like you are being polite.

The topic, yea many self proclaimed atheists are ignorant to their worldview, but at the same time if their worldview is true they can't be blamed can they?
As for equal rights, in the event I decide to go on living as if God doesn't exist I'd support it, but have no objective reason to do so. I would simply support it because I like the idea.

Is it just me or did the atheist guy sound desperate on his last reply? He didn't answer the questioner's point at all! He resorted to using foul language and insults to shut the theist up, because, I suspect, he was running out of responses. It's made even more arrogant and disgusting by the fact that the Christian seemed very respectful, continuously referring to the blogger as "sir." But some people take respect to be outdated, I suppose.
Anyways, what are your thoughts on the discussion? On the whole topic? What do you think about equal rights?

Well philosophical reasoning is not gonna change anyone's world view, seriously. you can talk with an atheist or a a theist all day and end up at a angry back out. Truth is there are a lot of questions no one can answer. For example if I ask an atheist how did matter originate on its own, since it can't, because something has to come out of something and not from nothing. The plain answer I get is it always existed. If you ask about moral values, you get typical responses like the above. When I was an atheist I wanted to be good and a moral citizen and human being, and you could. it doesn't take religion. But what the atheist does not realize is that in being the moral human being, he is following the general same standard, religion practices. don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, things like that. I mean it is the same thing, just without a god. And atheist argue this all the time, you don't need religion to be good and you don't'. That is true. but you need God for a justification of that good which an atheist tries to achieve. Because if there is no god that objectivity doesn't exist. morals are for the convenience of man and not the other way around.

The atheist will say that humans have evolved to the point where they care for each other know whats good but as ideal as it may be, that is far from truth. humans are stubborn and confrontational. They confront anything that is against their belief. be it religion, country, family, loved ones, children, their tribe or their nation. We are as sentient as our beliefs are. We kill other men in the name of patriotism and we feel it is justified. But patriotism does not need a god, then why is there blood being shed in the name of land or country or flag. what values do these objects hold for us and why does a flag is more important than a man's life. you pick up a gun and you shoot someone's son, you never met or knew, you don't know if he is a father, husband, brother. you just do it. But the crowds cheer for people, for their troops. because their safety is of more value than a man's life. so the values that we assign to such objects is very crucial but somewhere it does represent our own presence and survival. from cave men to modern men, the rules haven't changed, the technology has. So are we sentient and aware? we are destroying our planet, humans eradicate whole ecosystems, how are we sentient then? how are we moral. if moral means, don't kill anyone unless they attack you, then that is no moral at all. it simply is a mechanism to sustain peace. Human beings are selfish, it is in their system, you can say altruism exists, and it does, but only as long as the beggar is not after you with a knife.

But apart form all this, and amazingly, human beings do carry a sense of universal right and wrong, they do. despite carrying out all the selfish, horrible deeds, they still know what was morally wrong. even if it was the only option or choice. and that my friends, is what is objective morality. it only exists above our our understandings, above our own conscious if I might say. But it does.

So why does an atheist is having a contradiction, why can't he carry the same objectivity but not accept it - because to him objective rules exist (rape is bad, no matter who does it. this rule is objective), even if their origins are unknown. And atheists are happy to follow them, but the point is, in all the following they do not realize that an objective rule has to come beyond human perception or else it won't be objective at all. Since every human society will devise rules according to their own interests, we can definitely conclude that would be subjective. the Mayans performed human sacrifices without guilt, that was their subjective rule but to them it was objective.

Some one can say that we have the same case, we have subjective rules but we think they are objective. but that is not true. for example. if we realize that what we believe is subjective although we think it is objective, then there should be no guilt attached if we carry out what we think is right (after all it is subjective). but the problem is, guilt is present, the idea stays. you can of course deny it or be at a point where you just don't care, but it is there, only you are not looking at it.

I wont say that the onus is on the atheist to prove their moral point, but they should at least ponder on the idea where did we evolve to have an idea of what is objective and what is subjective, and does objectivity exists, cuz if it does then there is a serious question as to how we got it.

He sounded desperate and also blind to the faults of his own arguments. Or maybe not quite blind but in denial perhaps. The Christian did a good job.