Hi! I am Victor. I am atheist. Here’s a response to the points you made in your piece. I wrote this relatively quickly, so it’s a bit unpolished and all that, but yeah. Take a look, and respond if u feel like it! If you have small questions or whatever dm me on discord, Villi V#0904.
Point 1.1: You say that “an atheist’s viewpoint has no answer for these questions, because the answer relies on the assumption of a moral code.” However, this is a logical fallacy: you're assuming that a moral code assumes the existence of a deity to supply the moral code. I believe it comes from evolution.
But! You say a moral code cannot come from evolution. I disagree. Humans evolved to have empathy. Empathy, being able to relate to other humans and imagine what they are going through, evolutionarily benefits us. It allows us to care for others: if no one fed the hungry or healed the sick, a small tribe/family would quickly die out. If a small tribe couldn’t survive without empathy, we would never make it to large societies, and societies are largely what make humans so successful. (Makes us less likely to be killed and more likely to reproduce.) Being killed and being raped is an immensely painful thing for the victim. We have an evolutionary empathy to be disgusted by these acts because we subconsciously imagine how the victim felt. Extending this logic, black lives matter because not being respected or cared about is also extremely painful. Our empathy wants everyone to not experience pain and be happy, and being considered to not matter makes one unhappy.
A challenge to your belief that a god must provide a moral code: if a god provides our moral code, why do moral codes differ from person to person? From Christian to Christian?
Point 1.2: You commit another logical fallacy here. The origin of life is not known. You say: since the origin of life is not known, god must exist. I say only: the origin of life is not known. Actually, scientists have some ideas about abiogenesis, but this happened at least 3.5 billion years ago — we cannot study what really happened, only theorize. In order to understand it further, I did some research online. I am, and I assume you are, woefully under qualified in astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology to understand half of this research; therefore, it is useless for us to debate it.
Before I realized how underqualified I was, I wrote this:
Besides, it is more likely for life to appear than you think. Earth is the only planet known to have life form on it. In the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast universe and amount of planets we have discovered, life only formed once. You make the analogy of shaking a bucket of half a million words until a novel is spelled out. So you can think of it like every planet in the universe is a bucket, and every planet is constantly shaking a bucket over more than 14 billion years, or 14,000 million years, or 14,000,000,000 years. And now consider: life fits to evolve to its environment. Some environments like earth are incredibly conducive to life! In my mind, this makes things even more likely. I am getting ahead of myself.
I should repeat, I recognize that we are both woefully under qualified to speak on this subject. Thus, it is useless to argue about something we couldn’t hope to understand.
Point 1.3: 1. The origin of life is not known. This does not mean that some high power chose to create life. Also, we are both under qualified to speak on this subject, so debating it is useless.
2. Evolution is more efficient in sexual reproduction. Check out this source. https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2001/011513/sexual-vs-asexual-reproduction-scientists-find-sex-wins Scientists made two different populations of fruit flies, the first they genetically modified to reproduce asexually, the second left alone. Then they mutated the genes of some of the flies in each population to have a more beneficial eye color (I think white, if I remember correctly). In the sexual population, this gene became common much more quickly than compared to the asexual population.
3. I’m glad you find thinking about the world as being created for you is more beautiful than otherwise. I find that the world coming together by natural laws and physics and chemistry to form a beautiful thing beautiful. I find that the form of organisms fitting their function is beautiful, and the awe in the history of natural geological patterns is beautiful.
If you choose to respond, I ask only two things. The first, that you acknowledge all of my points (as I think I did to your piece), and the second, that we remain civil!
I realized this is kinda condescending, so read this next bit with a grain of salt: As you are well aware, debates that turn into emotion and feelings and opinions become not evidence-based and unhelpful for all.
Have a lovely day, and happy new year :)
I should say that from what I have read of the bible and heard of Jesus's teachings, I agree with a lot of the philosophy. However, I don't see why we should view the bible as a religion instead of just reading the teachings of Jesus as philosophy, like I read Plato or books on Taoism.