If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[Torillian]

BenVTrigger said:

Torillian said:

Yep, which brings us back to my original point, that the true answer for an atheist scientist is "we don't know yet".  I agree with you that just believing in a self replicant universe based off of nothing is silly, it's just a theory that could explain what we see, but the belief in a god to explain those things is just as silly from a scientific standpoint.  That said I'd like some kind of proof that the majority of atheists believe in a self replicant universe as this is the first I've heard of it.  

I already apologized to atheists.

And dont worry were just starting to get deeper into why I stand on the intelligant design side, though that mostly should have already been clear

If I'm reading it right, it's because of the old watchmaker philosophy.  You can't have something this complex without someone behind it.  Which is a point we'll have to disagree on.  

And you're correct that using what you've seen to logic out how things work that you can't see is pretty standard scientific method but there are certainly examples of things that it doesn't work for.  Probably the best example are quantum fields where you start to deal with things so tiny that they no longer follow the standard logic we use for things on the scale we're used to thinking about.  We've never seen an electron so trying to picture something that can only exist in certain states around the nucleus instead of a continuum between those states makes very little intuitive sense and is not the way people imagined it when they first found discovered the electron.  In fact I'd venture to say that most times when people just try to common sense out something that's on the edge of scientific knowledge they usually come out wrong so I guess that's the reason I'd state for not believing in intelligent design due to the examples you give.