Posted on 07/10/2008 11:31:50 AM PDT by Uncle Ralph
>> Part of it, I think, is that there is a certain percentage of atheists who are obnoxious about their disbelief and go out of their way to insult religious people.
Absolutely true. I simply cannot understand the motivation behind “evangelical atheism”. Best I can tell, it is a faith defined by self-aggrandizing superiority, and the indomitable drive to prove that you’re the smartest person in the room. Many will take any opportunity to attack the faith of a Christian for the sole purpose of attempting to destroy that faith — why? If atheists are as right as they think they are, what good comes from destroying the foundational beliefs of another human being? What difference does it make?
While insufferable obnoxiousness is not confined to evangelical atheists — believers at least have the added motivation of attempting to save the soul of a non-believer. Yes, some are obnoxious. Yes, some just want to prove they are holier than thou. But, there is a higher purpose there. Atheists have no such higher purpose — they can seek nothing but destruction and self-aggrandizement.
I also object to the shifting of the “burden of proof” to believers. Atheism is defined by the outright declaration that there is NO God. To a scientific mind, such a declaration requires proof.
Agnostics, as I understand them, have no opinion. This is a scientifically justifiable conclusion — there is not enough empirical evidence to determine with certainty whether there is a God or not.
Anything beyond the declaration “I don’t know” requires faith. To have a belief either way (God or no God) requires a leap of faith ... it requires the acceptance of a premise which is beyond the empirical evidence before us. Thus, Atheism is a faith, and should be held to the same trying standards that Atheists seek to hold other believers to.
I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God — yet I believe. Atheists cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God — yet they disbelieve. I see no difference in the leap beyond the empirical. To require a higher burden of proof from believer than you require of yourself is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest — and certainly not consistent with the scientific premises which atheists hold in such high regard.
H
The Agnostic view is that there is not enough evidence of the existence of a supreme being, but that you cannot logically conclude with 100% certainty that no such being exists.
One thing I always found amusing is the existence of Atheist groups. That makes no sense to me- why get together based on something you don't believe in? It would be like groups forming on the basis of non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Atheists get REALLY upset when you tell them that their assertion of No Deity is a theological position, and in and of itself requires faith to maintain, as there is no proof of No Deity.
Another thing about the “evangelical atheists” - if I don’t believe that purple unicorns exist, I don’t go around talking about them and denouncing their existance - it is a “null topic” to me.
I had an evo/atheist the other day proclaim that evolution and natural selection (I believe he even capitalized them) accounted for EVERYTHING we observe about the world and the human ethos and ego, including the longing for God.
Talk about a religion requiring faith...
Rebellion.
I don’t know about ya’ll but when I use the term ‘logic’ I mean it in the university classroom type sense, one should be able to write down their logic for anyone to read.
Logic (and the scientific method) absolutely depends upon empirical facts, something that can be observed or directly inferred from the senses. If one’s hypothesis (for example: there is a god) is not based on an empirical fact, then it is flat out wrong under the rules of logic, that’s how the system works…absolutely nothing is assumed. Critical thinking requires one to consider every possibility but only accept what can be proved.
In that light, Hitchens is absolutely right. He isn’t the one asserting that something exists. Conversely however, if they were having a discussion on evolution then their roles would be reversed.
Hemorrhage, you’re partly right one the proving of a negative. Now you’re wrong in denying that it’s wrong, it’s illogical to ask someone to prove something they can’t get proof for if you’re the one making the improvable hypothesis but let me give you an example. If I were to claim there was no Mars then obviously the burden would be on me but why? Didn’t I just state that the burden is on the one claiming that something exists?
It is but the great thing about science is that we don’t have to start from the beginning everything we want to use the scientific process. As Newton said, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Commonly held scientific beliefs, mathematical proofs, etc. can be used as a basis of justification in and of themselves if they’ve been proven true often enough. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be revisited, in fact they should be often but not in everyday casual discussion.
The debate between Hitchens and the rabbi was flawed from the start, neither party was starting from the same assumptions or using the same methods to gain knowledge or accept various ‘facts’ as being true. I’ve seen a lot of debates here in DC between liberals and conservatives, conservatives and libertarians, etc. The only time I’ve seen a debate between two people who held the same premises, used the same methods to form their arguments, and yet come out to two different conclusions was between two philosophy professors. Ah well.
>> Logic (and the scientific method) absolutely depends upon empirical facts, something that can be observed or directly inferred from the senses. If one’s hypothesis (for example: there is a god) is not based on an empirical fact, then it is flat out wrong under the rules of logic,
Confining theological debates to your definition of empirical “logic” necessarily rests on the assumption that the human mind is capable of grasping all things. That assumption is not logically justifiable — and thus we have the paradox from which “faith” emerges.
Furthermore, your argument for the prevalence of “empirical facts” assumes that nothing exists beyond that which can be “observed or directly inferred through the senses”. This is also an unjustified assumption.
The existence or non-existence of God is a debate which necessarily defies the confines of “empirical facts” and the logical confines of the human mind. There cannot exist empirical evidence for or against the existence of God, and thus limiting this debate to the “scientific method” is a flawed starting point.
>> Now you’re wrong in denying that it’s wrong, it’s illogical to ask someone to prove something they can’t get proof for if you’re the one making the improvable hypothesis but let me give you an example.
“There is no God” is also an improvable hypothesis. Restricting a debate over two improvable hypotheses (There is a God; There is no God) to a “scientific method” debate defies logic.
H
Nothing short of a great Civil War rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society. There is a struggle for the hearts and minds of people. It is a war of ideas. It is a battle of worldviews with the atheistic groups (secular humanists, Marxists, and New Agers), who want to destroy the values of Christians.
If "New Age" means crystals, astrology, reincarnation, shamanism, auras, and stuff like that, then some of those atheists hate New Agers more than you do.
Could it be that you're more against the New Agers than they are against you?
Pure logic does not require empirical facts.
For example, one can prove the Pythagorean theorem without ever seeing an actual triangle (and in fact you cannot prove the Pythagorean theorem via empiricism(.
Many evangelical atheists believe that religion itself is a primary source of evilin the world and are out to destroy religion in order to save humanity from its “delusions”
Read a book (or anything) by Richard Dawkins if you want to understand the mindset.
They get together into groups because they think they are the healthy, normal portion of humanity trying to save the rest of humanity from its unhealthy delusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.