I thought it was funny that our unicorn hunting friend (GuppyHarding) said, "It would be my responsibility..." It looks like he's trying to take the moral high ground here, but I would like to know upon what moral standard he is basing his opinion. David Hume said:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason."
In general, I agree with Hume's point, even if he did express it hypocritically (Did you notice that Hume also introduced the word "should"?). Starting from a materialistic point of view, you have nothing more than being (a simple ontological state of affairs). Being doesn't in and of itself suggest that being is better than not being, or that things should be, or that critters ought to survive or even that they care whether or not they survive. If there is no God, there is no teleology, no deontology and no standard for ethics. A consistent materialist has no basis for speaking of purpose, desire, joy, suffering or beauty. There is just "is," and you can't get an "ought" from an "is." It's hypocritical to claim the moral high ground while you're denying the very basis for morality. As Dostoevsky said, "If there is no God, then everything is permitted."
Being an atheist isn't hypocritical in and of itself, but no atheist can truly live as if nothing matters. As Francis Schaeffer said, "If the unsaved man was consistent he would be an atheist in religion, an irrationalist in philosophy (including a complete uncertainty concerning 'natural laws'), and completely a-moral in the widest sense."
How can one reject the possibility of a God because there is no physical proof, when one cannot prove that a God doesn't exist because there is no physical proof?
Simply put, to implicitly state there is no God relies upon the same degree of belief, as
it does to implicitly state that there is a God.
Two things to consider
- Lack of evidence is not evidence.
- Anything is possible, no matter how improbable.
Here are some examples for some double-standards Atheists have.
Atheists oppose preaching
They preach Atheism
Atheists say that they shouldn't believe in an unfalsifiable being.
Some Atheists believe in Aliens and/or Multiverse.
Atheists say that religions put up hate between each other.
Atheists put up hate for religion, but stand on a pedestal and judge religion instead of considering that.
Atheists in big mayority hate dogmas but they have dogmas as well
1 all religions are bad and dooesn't have anything good
2 christian religion is anti science
3 believe everything that sam harris hitchens and dawkins say as the absoluite true
4 always blame christians for crusades but not communist for gulags in urss big jump chinese genocide and pol pot policy or every other crime commited in the name of atheism
See the fat that atheists have categorized or accepted categorization of unbelief is a premise that stands against them. Think about it... Just because you hunt deer one a year doesnt make you a hunter but you will claim to be a hunter.
Saying you are an atheist and proposing a positive claim is self refuting. Its like someone telling you they have no apples at home in the fridge. Who cares?
What atheists dont get is that persons of faith dont care. At all.
So go ahead and put yourself on the shelf over there thats labelled "atheist".
"Heys guys look i dont believe in any Gods/God..."
But you wont get that 'cuz the majority of atheists are under a strong delusion.
2 thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
Hasnt it ever occurred to the atheist that believers only have a 4000 year old book to reference and yet we can answer almost all your questions. Doesnt that strike you as interesting at all?
This isn't a question of if individual atheists are hypocrites. There exists hypocrites regardless of nationality, religion, or political ideology.
Atheism has no direct involvement with morality. The burden of proof has absolutely nothing to do with a moral high ground.
Stowaway on the YES side has made this mistake, and based a lengthy argument around it.
Atheism has no direct involvement with other possible claims, such as aliens, or infinite universes, as these have nothing to do with believing in a god or gods.
Mussab has made this mistake on the YES side, and shows a lack of ability (or desire) to distinguish between atheism and religion.
Atheism isn't a religion, or a belief involving faith of some kind. Those who treat it as such are wrong, even if they are self-proclaimed atheists.
Holler has made this mistake on the YES side.
Atheism is the absence of belief in any deity, whether explicit or implicit.
The entire YES column is composed of those who have preconceived (and wrong) notions about what atheism is.
Amusingly, these examples only reflect those eager to give them, rather than those they cast them upon.
"Atheism lacks proof like any other religion."
1) Atheism makes no claim so nothing to prove.
2) Atheism is not a religion, it is an antonym of religion. Look it up.
"How can one reject the possibility of a God because there is no physical proof, when one cannot prove that a God doesn't exist because there is no physical proof?"
Hitchen's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If I were to say that the center of Pluto is made of cotton candy without a bit of physical evidence to back it up, should my claim be considered valid till someone brings back a core sample to prove me wrong?
"- Lack of evidence is not evidence."
(see Hitchen's Razor)
"- Anything is possible, no matter how improbable."
Wrong, Everything must obey the laws of nature and rules of logic.
Example: Can a common cement block learn how to fly?
Do you have anything else besides ignorant statements and fallacies?
Atheism isn't necessarily an outright claim that a God doesn't exist, but rather varies between agnosticism (I don't think we will ever be able to prove that a God does or doesn't exist) and what most people seem to think all atheism is, which is an outright denial of the existence of any God. Really, it's not hypocritical, because it's not a belief. It is rather either an absence of belief or a belief in the power of humans rather than a divine being or beings.
The burden of proof is on the person who BREAKS the status quo. Having no god is the status quo, because god was imagined, or not the thing that when babies are born they dont immediately think of god. No god is status quo, so thus no evidence is needed, or at least not as much as evidence needed to prove god exists.
I don't know how many times this argument has to be refuted, but here we go again. If I were to tell you that I have an invisible unicorn in my backyard that you can't hear or feel you would tell me that I don't. Well, of course I don't but that's not the point. It would be my responsibility to prove that there is in fact a unicorn in my backyard, not your job to prove to me that there isn't. So without any proof from theists, I am gonna stick to my guns and say God is just as silly as that invisible unicorn.
Atheism is basically accepting the universe at its face value, you only worry about facts and what can be seen, if there is no proof there is no reason to believe it. Why don't you believe in Jesus, Buddha and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all in one?
Probably because your faith is in one of those specific deities (or possibly another, but I digress). And that's fine believe whatever you want. But lack of evidence is a good reason not to believe in something. I don't believe in Unicorns, care to guess why? And hypothetically just because something is possible doesn't mean its true.
Atheism, as a whole, is simply the lack of the belief in a deity. There are, of course, subsections of atheism. There are implicit atheists, that simply don't believe in a God, and then there are explicit atheists, who outright deny the existence of God. There can also be Agnostic Atheists, which is basically, "I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe that we know,".
Is that just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I don't have morals. I don't need a grand and holy reason to have morals, Because morals come from our humanity. They may be guided by god if one believes in a religion, But just being alive and experiencing life for ourselves is what lets us learn what's right and what's wrong. It's not fair to categorize all atheists as possible baby-killers in the making, Just as it isn't fair to assume that all Catholic priests rape children and all Christians are hillbilly bible-thumping racists. We all have morals that prevent us from doing these things, Whether or not they were given to us by a higher being.