Funny, the atheists are always asking for proof from the religious groups on this board. I’ve seen the statement (in one form or another) that 'religion is responsible for most wars', etc, etc, over and over, yada, yada.
But do they ever ask their fellow atheists (oh, by the way, I am an atheist) for proof?
Never, because it fits their preconceived notions of the world. They can hardly imagine religious people who are well adjusted, peaceful individuals.
For those of you interested in what causes wars in modern time:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
Sorry, but you’ll have to do the research yourself, but will only take a couple hours. ;-)
2006-09-25 19:07:10 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Just as theists assert there is a God, atheists assert there is no God. Each assertion can and should be asked for their evidence, and/or logical proof. Only the agnostic refuses to make any assertions regarding divinity. Therefore, the agnostic can remain without knowledge (a - no; gnosis - knowledge) and maintain academic credibility without proposing proofs. The proselytizing atheists in this forum should offer more efforts to prove their positioni and less ranting, IMHO. If only we could see ourselves as others see us....
2006-09-25 19:13:54 · answer #1 · answered by Nick â? 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I like the point that one can't prove a negative directly per se, but one can disprove an affirmative, which would in essence prove the negative. You basically conditionally affirm the affirmative and show how that would lead to a logical contradiction. Generally, atheists claim that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God, which is a logical fallacy .I'll discuss this in a moment. Rather than do that, they should provide evidence or arguments or both to counter the evidence and arguments for the existence of God.
On the "no evidence" claim: As I stated, many atheists claim that lack of evidence for the existence of God is the reason they don't believe in God. The reason for a lack of evidence though is not that there isn't evidence, but what these atheists would consider as valid evidence. Under their worldview, they would say that the natural world is all that is knowable, and from that, they would conclude that there is no reason to believe in God. Here is what the argument would look like
1.) The natural world is all that is knowable.
2.) Therefore, the supernatural (God) is unknowable
3.) Therefore, evidence for the existence of the supernatural (God) world doesn't exist
4.) Because there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe in the supernatural (God).
Premise 2 and the conclusion in 4 are the same thing, which is circular reasoning. So the reason many atheist don't believe is not because there is a lack of evidence, but because they don't believe there can be any evidence for the existence of God.
Concerning war: saying religion is the cause of most of the wars is a post hoc fallacy. It is true that there have been religious wars fought, but it not the same thing as wars being fought by religious people. It just so happens that most people in the world are religious. It would be the same logic as me saying that most wars were started because people breathe air. Breathing air has nothing to do with wars starting in the same manner that religion does. I'd venture to say that politics, not religion, was the blame for most of wars fought because in observable history.
2006-09-26 12:34:31 · answer #2 · answered by The1andOnlyMule 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because it is a logical fallacy... it's like saying "an invisable purple dragon lives under my bed, and you can't prove he doesn't." Imagine navigating that kind of illogical reality through life.
2006-09-26 02:23:51 · answer #3 · answered by Lirrain 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't ask anyone for proof. I choose not to follow a set religion however I don't have any problem with those who do...unless they try to force their beliefs on me
2006-09-26 02:11:27 · answer #4 · answered by NiK* 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it is impossible to prove a negative--one of those fun rules of logic and philosophy. You cannot prove that something does NOT exist (try, I dare ya!). Therefore all burden of proof lies on those who maintain the existence of whatever is in question.
2006-09-26 02:10:34 · answer #5 · answered by N 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Thats funny...Cuz our proof is the proof that you can not proof wich meens that our belief is proven.
2006-09-26 02:09:01 · answer #6 · answered by Z ten 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋