theemporer said:
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.
Ofc lack of physical evidence is meaningless - that's why i said the discussion diverges into two different things, because one side still requires it. From my position, the lack of physical evidence isn't a problem as we're talking about a supernatural being, however i do question whether the proposition that a god exists solves anything or offers anything - and i find that it really doesn't.
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.
The example of the god i took was based of the christian one, so whether a god is capricious or jealous wouldn't change his existence, it would merely make worshipping him questionable, that's a wholly different discussion however.
The requirement of natural proof of a supernatural being is only contradictory at first glance. To a materialist, if that supernatural being has no effect on the natural world, his existence or non-existence becomes a moot question, but if he has an effect on the natural world, then there should be signs of that. The lack of natural evidence therefore is valid grounds on which to deny any effect on the natural world, and thus deny importance and/or existence.
It doesn't prove non-existence ofc, it merely proves disinterest or inability to interact with the natural world; at which point the question 'why should i follow an arbitrary set of rules for no other reason than the existence of a being that has no effect no our world' becomes valid.
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.
I have 0 problems with people reconciling their faith with science -- that's why i contend debaters are often discussing 2 different issues, and merely posit that in face of proof to the contrary, science needs to prevail over faith in the field of science. That said, fans of the atheist side of the argument, especially those with a shaky understanding of science, need to understand that science doesn't explain the "why" of things, just the "how".
Evolution is a fact, evolution through random mutation & natural selection our best current model to explain that, and whoever denies that is a moron. Whether there is a god behind that pulling the strings, is not a question science is set up to answer; otoh if you posit the existence of such a being, that throws up a ton of other questions faithful so far haven't been able to answer in a satisfactory manner.
Lastly, science knows it cannot find the truth of any given unknown fact - whoever says that has little understanding of science: When we come up with a new model to explain observation X in reality, that's simply a new model, it doesn't mean the last one was necessarily wrong, it simply means this one is better, or farther in scope. Alternatively, two concurrent models can exist at the same time, because depending on which scale we look at things, one might be more practical than the other.
Science can prove some things, science can disprove some things; but science can also prove the unprovability, or disprove the provability. Math is quite a good example of that. The position that science can & eventually will find and explain everything is already proven wrong by science itself.
That said however "facts" and "proof" in science are very different things, depending on whether someone uses the words colloquially, or in the scientific sense. Gravitation is a fact; our theories about it aren't - that's where people untrained in scientific thinking often take the wrong turn. Just because gravitation is a fact doesn't mean our theories about it are. That's an error in arguing however, not an error of science.
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?
That's just the point i was criticizing however. The argument that because i believe i'll rot after my death & will be eaten by worms - a proposition i consider to be true - does not automatically lead to having no reason to think and act morally, nor to amoral actions.
The existence of a supreme arbiter and reward/penalty after life is not necessary for me to behave in a decent way.
The reasons to act morally can be drawn from any number of fields, philosophy, psychology, social evolution, neurology, or even evolution through natural selection: Altruism is an advantageous tactic for a species of pack animals and cursorial hunters as we are.
The pretention that we need a god to behave in a moral way is ... pretentious at best (also, my english teacher is now turning in her grave
). Lack of a divine reason to act moral does not mean lack of reason to act moral - the proposition that there is a moral framework only through the existence of a supreme being is a) wrong, and b) catastrophic.
As to the discussion of punishing cannibals, serial killers, etc.. for transgression, that hasn't necessarily much to do with pushing our moral beliefs unto them, but protecting our society. It's a wholly different discussion - the morals of law vs. justice.
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.
I concede that bigotted or violent extremists don't represent the majority of the faithful, and i concede that the existence of someone like that doesn't disprove the existence of god.
It merely makes me wonder how, considering the fact that faith was a necessary requirement for evil actions of some, others who share their faith can hold the opinion that it is a good thing, and why they refuse to divorce themselves from factions who demonstrably aren't following the tenets of leading a good and peaceful life.
That not all religions consider themselves to be the One Truth is a given, but the reality is that many do. My Criticism is for those evangelical ones - a word i quite clearly stated in my previous post. Religious people who do not act in an evangelical way are obviously exempt.
But the inbuilt evangelism is were those religions become annoying and or dangerous - because they assert that they are the One Truth, and they need to convert others - conversionism is the very key principle of evangelism, though hardly exclusive to christian religions. That very behavior is why they go out & destroy other peoples lives, and not only people they do not know, but also people who are their (unbelieving) friends, to save their souls.
They interfere into others lives, destroy whole cultures, antagonize people who believe different than they do, based simply on the very notions that their god is the one true god, their faith is the one true faith, and that souls need saving.
Is it so far fetched that before i tolerate this, proof of existence or relevance be brought first?
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.
There may be some religions that do not act on it, but many aggressively do, and cause harm to hundreds of millions. Proof of necessity remains owed.
Don't understand me wrong: i do not assert that every faithful is an evil being, not at all. I'm simply saying that if, through your faith, you decide to meddle into someone elses affairs, the burden of proof to justify this remains on you.
Atheists aren't going out there & saying condoms are bad because their faith forbids them.
Atheists aren't treating women as second rate human beings because their faith tells them so.
Atheists don't discriminate based on their faith.
etc..
Nothing of what i wrote disproves the existence of god. But if you do anything that adversely affects others because of your faith, you better damn well be able to prove the existence of god to justify this. And thus my central argument:
The burden of proof remains with the believers, not the atheists.
If your faith makes you do good things, keeps you from doing bad things, and you don't go out of your way to interfere with other people's lives - then we don't have a problem. I may contend that all this would be possible without faith, but if the process and end result are fine, it's fairly pointless arguing the reason behind it. There are many faithful who act in such a way - those, i have no problem with, and try not to annoy with my unreligiousness
