An pro-Islam YouTube channel has decided to make a series of questions that no atheist can answer. I figured that since I haven’t done anything atheist in forever, I would take on these questions. Here’s a link to the video, now let’s do this.
How did existence emerge out of no-space and no-time?
How do you know there was no-space and no-time before reality as we understand it? The truth is that we don’t know how exactly the universe came into being. There are a number of theories, but all of those could be proven wrong. Meanwhile, your religious book says that Allah somehow always existed outside space and time and magically made everything. Yeah, I’ll take actual science over sky wizard magic.
How can an atheist assume his atheism is valid?
I am an atheist, therefore my atheism is valid. Given what I’ve seen of modern science and the various religious texts I have read, I have concluded that their beliefs in a divine being are absurd, so I do not believe in them. Boom, that was easy. Aren’t these questions supposed to be so hard that no atheist can answer them?
When the moment of the start of existence is stark proof on the creativity of the creator and his ability to originate existence?
Oh, I jumped the gun there. Well, I can answer this too. There is NO proof that the universe was created by a magical sky-wizard. None. You all talk about sunrises and rainbows and a nice ass on a sexy lady, but then decide to just ignore the fact that most of reality cannot support life, because it exists in a massive void called space. That there are a TON of things that are not beautifully made on this world, such as birth defects, evil people, and the fact that our planet is one giant asteroid away from humanity being dead. I can see my atheism as valid because I can see that there is ZERO proof of your creator, and your pathetic supposition about the beauty of existence. Again, wasn’t this supposed to be hard?
How did no life transform into life?
We don’t know. See, once-again, this is something science has that religions does not. We have the humility to acknowledge when we don’t have all the answers. Meanwhile, ancient books written by primitive savages are what you hold up as absolute truth. But please, tell me again how you are so enlightened. There are a lot of theories about the origin of life on Earth. Eventually, we will be able to create rudimentary life in a laboratory, and on that day, I will smugly look at your retarded morons and say “where is your Allah now?”
How did matter mutate from lifelessness into living cells?
Again, we don’t know for sure, but there are a number of theories. Science is looking for the answer. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen your bullshit religion figuring anything out. Given that your religion has a bad habit of being shit on by actual science. Like how the Quran says that night is as a cover over day, when we know that is patently untrue. Or how you can somehow transmute mud into man. I’ll take science over that stupid shit any day.
With all our techniques and advances, we cannot originate the simplest form of life, so how can we explain the origination of life in the dead matter?
What a weird phrasing. Matter isn’t dead or alive. It is. Living cells are dead or alive. As I said, we currently haven’t gained the ability to create life in a laboratory, but the day is coming. And when it does, I cannot wait to watch you eat those words. Not to mention, isn’t this a tacit admission that it takes magic to do it? So you do believe in magic. Good to know.
Wouldn’t we, at least, be able to originate a form of life that supersedes the one that originated in the dead matter by at least a million times?
Someday we will be able to create rudimentary life, but complex life forms grow over millions of years of evolution. They aren’t just made in a factory. That’s your religious bias talking. You don’t just make complicated organisms. We will no doubt be able to clone current life, but creating organisms that are (as you put it) at least a million times more complicated than current life is asinine. Genetic modification through gene therapy is one way we can alter genetics of an organism, but creating all that from scratch is ridiculous. Because you think that life is created, you have this bias. Sorry that reality doesn’t work the way you want it in your head.
How can the atheist argue against the annihilation of all mankind?
Because I was born with empathy I don’t want to kill my fellow human being en masse. I joke around that human needs to die, but there is some part of me in the dark recesses of my little black heart that hopes that somehow, some way, humanity figures out how to save itself from its own stupidity.
What is the rational, substantial, scientific evidence an atheist can present to prove the annihilation of all mankind is a mistake?
Easy, the human brain has the capacity for empathy. We see looking after our fellow human being as a goal to aspire to. We want to improve the world we live in. Meanwhile, let’s take a look at your holy book. It calls for death for those who leave the faith, or to kill non-believers, unless they convert to Islam. Your religious text condones more murder than atheist secularism EVER will. But please, tell me again how I believe in genocide. You then decide to ditch the questions and tell us that we must naturally assume that genocide is rational to save the species. Um, no. I believe that sexual education and access to contraception will do more to stop overpopulation than your retarded book.
Atheism assumes that human beings are just animals who came into existence after a long and slow sequence of evolution from meaner beings, so what if a higher being came into existence?
There is a LOT to unpack here. Atheism doesn’t believe that we came into existence from really mean beings. We came from less evolved forms of life. But since human history is a litany of violence (so is your religion, both post and current times), saying that we came from “meaner beings” is a really strange way to phrase things. I believe we came from less evolved forms. Sure, they were violent, but nature is violent. Humanity is violent. Violence is a part of life. One that, unfortunately, humanity can’t get away from.
As for your second question, what would happen if a higher being came into existence? Well, if the Q shows up one day, I can’t stop it from choosing to destroy humanity. If we meet some hyper-evolved intelligent being that has figured out the right way to live, I guess we can sit back and realize how bad we fucked up and feel sad. This is such a strange question.
Will it have the right to put us in cages and use us as lab rats?
The right? No. It might have the power to do that. But if there is a being who has evolved and grown to the point that they realize the nature of reality and that we have to look after each other, they aren’t going to want to do so. Western society evolved socially to see slavery as wrong. Here in America, we had a big old war over that belief. It’s telling about your view on reality when you think a higher being has barbarous intentions. Islam at work? You then once-again go out of the mode of asking questions to give your answer – the “darwinist” answer is “Yes!” For one, Darwinism is a bullshit term that I have only ever heard creationists use. For another, find me all the biologists who want to enslave people.
Oh, but we can look at your religion and see people enslaving people. Like how ISIS has taken women all over the Middle East as sex slaves. Like that? I love that a Muslim is telling me about how immoral I am, when the immorality of Islam is everywhere to be found.
So, what is the purpose from protecting mankind or providing them with meaning or purpose when it comes to atheism?
Atheism tells people that meaning and purpose is what you make of it. There is no higher being to give us purpose. We have to find it in our own lives through our own values systems that are unique to every individual. I’m sorry that our belief structure is all about freedom while yours tells you to accept easy answers from a sky-wizard despot. Oh, but you decide to answer your own question again, with the propaganda that you approve of. Wasn’t this supposed to be questions that atheists like me are supposed to answer? I’m feeling really gypped here.
What if, according to evolution, we proved that one race is higher than the other?
Higher how? We have proven that the Asian community tends to favor intelligence in their genes. We’ve shown that black people tend to have much bigger cocks than white people. What is your metric for “higher”?
Will the higher race be allowed to transform the lesser race into used matter: as we do with the insects or animals?
You haven’t even defined what the “higher race” is. I suppose this is to be about eugenics. Well, since we are all part of the same species, there is no “higher race.” We are all human. Different humans have different genetic traits, we we share a same species. This ties in with that creationist bullshit you hear about “kinds” and shit like that. But since we know that not all evolution is done by “survival of the fittest,” the argument that only the strongest organism will survive is no longer valid. We now know that weaker organisms evolve defenses against the stronger organisms. Or they will go to other areas and once they no longer have that predator, they evolve in different ways. That’s called genetic drift. Your whole argument is based on a bullshit analogy of what evolution teaches. Muslim creationists, go figure.
Then you decide to once-again answer your own question and say that your “brilliant” argument is enough to demolish atheism from the mind of anyone that uses common sense. I just refuted it, so yeah, didn’t do shit to me.
After this he goes into a long diatribe about how atheism says that morals are relative, but that atheists then say that morals are absolute when shit hits the fan in our own lives. A statement that is blatantly not true. Citation needed, moron. I’m gonna try and figure out if I can put into words what this dude is trying to ask here, since there is no question. It’s just a sermon from this guy for a long stretch of time.
If morals are relative, how can you claim there is immorality for the bad things that happen?
Okay, let’s play a little game with that. Your holy book tells you to murder people who leave the faith. It’s a fact. It also tells you that men are stronger than women and to use that strength over women. So, when was the last apostate that you killed? Or the last woman you beat? Both are fine according the moral precepts of your book? Meanwhile, in Christianity, it says that you shouldn’t beat women, but you should silence them in church, because they should ask their husband whatever they are confused about. What Christians tell their bitch to shut up in church?
Morality is relative. The morals of ISIS are not the morals of contemporary Islam, correct? However, in places like the UK, it was found that the vast majority of Muslims there would not report to the police if they knew a terrorist attach was coming by a Muslim. What is the correct thing to do? The moral thing to do in that instance changes.
Meanwhile, atheism says that morals are relative, and instead of following some moral code set out by some ayatollah or religious leader, to follow empathy and try and be an empathetic person. That is as close to actual objective morality as we will ever get.
How did the amazing constants of physics emerge?
Stephen Hawking wrote a book about how the universe could easily have come into existence, physics and all, without the need for a God. I hate to be accused of the argument from authority argument, but this guy was one of the smartest people to ever live. I think his source trumps your ancient desert tomes.
You then decide to go into the Cosmological Argument. For those who want my beautiful destruction of that stupid-ass argument, here’s a link. One thing you make is the argument that if things were even the slightest bit different, reality would collapse. How do you know this? How do you know that instead, it would just be another reality where there are new laws of physics? It’s why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said if we ever do find a door to other words, best to send a probe first, because it may have laws of physics that don’t interact with our reality.
How did the genome emerge within the living cells?
This ties into the emergence of life. Even the most basic bacteria cells have DNA. You answer the story of the origin of life on Earth, you answer that question. Idiot. But you make the argument of “there had to be writer for it.” So dumb. We’ve seen how natural processes can change DNA, through forces like mutation, where the DNA of one cell mutates. Cancer is a mutation of healthy cells into cancerous ones. Did Allah decide to just go into all those cells and change things? Neat fact – cancer cells don’t age, so long as the host organism survives. In theory, cancer could live forever.
Where do morality and values come from, when it comes to atheism?
I’ve already answered this question. Next! Oh, wait, there is nothing next. You just summarize your bullshit.
Well, that was…not fun at all. I hate it. Never doing this again. I’m tired of answering stupid questions. I have a headache. This was beating a dead horse.
Until next time, a quote,
“When the black plague swept the land, people killed cats, mistakenly thinking they spread the disease. In actuality, the plague was spread by rats–and we had done them a favor by genociding their natural predator. We haven’t gotten smarter since.” – TJ Kirk