cgaWolf said:
If you assert the existence of something, the burden of proof is on you, not on the sceptic.
At this point, the discussion usually diverges, as the faithful argue on the philosophical level for the existence of a god, while being unable to prove his existence on a physical level - whereas the materialist (that many atheists are) requires to accept the proposition that a god exists.
The problem with this argument is that atheists also make an assertion, the assertion that no god/goddess/etc. could exist. They give no proof other than that there is no proof. The belief in spiritual beings has existed for thousands of years, it is a paradigm that atheists wish to diverge from, yet they have no evidence against it. The faithful argue on a philosophical level because, by definition, God etc. cannot be known or observed physically. Thus the lack of physical evidence is meaningless.
cgaWolf said:
The problem here is that one posits the existence of an (omnipotent, omniscient & omnibenevolent) being that is clearly outside the realm of nature, whereas the other requires a natural proof as he refuses that things outside his physical reality have or should have an impact on him.
For one, not all religions hold that their spiritual being is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. There are also religions (Ancient Greek, for example) that claim that their gods are represented in nature. Regardless, the requirement of a natural proof in order to consider the possibility of a divine being that cannot be observed in nature is simply contradictory. I do not claim that they should believe in a divine being because it is possible but I don't understand the logic in denying it based on a lack of evidence that should not exist.
cgaWolf said:
The discussion can't even agree on the same topic, which makes science & faith not be direct opposites, but very compatible, provided faith takes a step back when science proves something in the natural world. The refusal to accept logic as it pertains to natural facts or the models we build to explain them is ununderstandable for someone firmly rooted in the scientific method; thus the statament that faithful are illogical.
I don't think I was discussing something like this in my original post but what do you mean by "The discussion can't even agree on the same topic"? Also, The denial of scientific discovery usually comes from a dogmatic, literal reading of sacred texts, for example, assuming that the story of Adam and Eve should be seen as historical fact rather than as an allegory. Without looking at the texts in such a literal way, one can better reconcile religion and modern science. Also, the idea that science can find any kind of fact, that can be proven without any doubt is dogmatic in itself. While future developments may prove a "natural fact" to be incorrect, science holds it as absolute fact that cannot be disputed.
cgaWolf said:
All that said, i refuse your implication that the lack of an immortal moral law means atheists are morally bankrupt. We see intrinsic value in good deeds, and there are humanist and social-evolutionary reasons why "doing good" is worth doing. In contrast, the refusal of an immortal moral law absolves me of having to push it unto someone else who may not share those laws or beliefs, and that is A Good Thing!
I never really said that atheists are without morals. All I meant to say was that atheists have no reason to be think morally, considering that they believe that we just rot in a hole when we die, regardless of what we do in life. While pushing ones beliefs on others is indeed wrong, there are some times when you have to. Cannibals, serial killers, etc. often believe that what they are doing is right. I suppose it's pushing our moral beliefs on others if we arrest criminals?
cgaWolf said:
That evangelical behaviour of religious people is the root of many evils committed by faithful. The opinion that my, and only my, belief is the One Truth, is one of the most damaging ideas ever known to mankind - regardless of whether it's rooted in faith, though it usually is.
Many religions do not believe that their religion is the "One Truth" (Hinduism, among others). Those that do such things are usually either not going by the actual religious teachings ("thou shalt not kill", for example) or extremists who should not represent the rest of the community. That some of the religious people believe that they are right has no bearing on the argument of whether divinity exists.
cgaWolf said:
Most churches have their own version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus - that dogma that my faith is The One True Faith is the cause and justification for all evil done by good men of faith; and that is the true crime of religions against humanity: It makes good people do bad things.
As I said previously, many religions do not believe this and with those that do, most do not act on it, besides extremists and the ignorant and, as I said, it has no meaning in the argument atheists are posing.
