Question for atheists...?

Question

Lets just assume that God does not exist and that everything came about through naturalistic processes. Would you still be willing to admit that there are some questions that science cannot answer or will ever be able to answer. For example, can you proove scientifically that murder is wrong????? Obviously you can't, but just because you cannot prove or disprove something scientifically, does that mean it is not worth discussing philosophically????? Just because you cannot proove or disprove the existence of God, does that mean it's not worth discussing philosophically????

Answer 1

Philosophy is full of questions which may never be answered.

Religion is full of answers which may never be questioned.

A philosophical discussion on religion defeats the purpose, does it not?

Answer 2

Whether murder is wrong or not is a moral question, which is outside the realm of science. You can prove (or disprove) scientifically that murder causes harm to society or other factual results of murder but moral questions will ultimately have to be decided by the individual based on their personal values whether religous or otherwise. Whether something or some entity physically exists is a scientific question because it factually is or it factually is not. Science at this time does not prove or disprove God, despite what people on both sides of the question claim, and it is extremely unlikely that it ever will. However assuming you could gather and verify all the relevant evidence that indicates yay or nay you could put this evidence through the scientific process and get a factual result. Whether it would be worth discussing God in a philosophic sense is still a moral question that science could not answer even if science was used to conclusively prove or disprove the factual existence of God.

Answer 3

Yes I can. Murder is not beneficial to a species that travels in packs, like humans. While that is the rule, sometimes the herd requires a bit of thinning so it still happens. We can discuss God Philosophically all day, just don't try to base legislation on or any decisions that affect me on him. Are there questions science hasn't answered? Yes, that is why scientists still have jobs. Are there questions we will never answer? Yes. Does that mean we should fiat fake deities we can't test for as the answer? No, such a thing is intellectually dishonest and retarded. The basis of Atheism is there is no evidence for God AT ALL. Show us some testable evidence that proves God and I will be the first to sign up.

Answer 4

Your question(s) are not logical.

We are the only species that commits "murder" in the sense we use it. So either we are the only ones that are right, or the only ones that are wrong. Murder is waste in the animal world, and waste isn't productive or positive to the survival of a species. Much of this can be proved. However, saying that murder is "wrong" is more in the tone of an opinion and a feeling that most everyone believes to be true. You don't need to believe or disbelieve in a god to feel that murder is wrong! You don't ask yourself, does murder exist? It's all over the news!

Long story short, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And there are many things we will never know with 100% certainty. But there should be some logic involved in your opinion instead of just doing what others tell you to do and using their opinion as your own.

However, you can tell by the tone of your question(s) that it is asked in frustration and with your own slant. Same as someone with an opposing opinion from yours. We have the right to feel whatever we want to, and luckily we still have that freedom of speech. So if anyone doesn't want to hear the negative or the opposing views of their question, then its best to ask your question in a group of like minded individuals where you can get the type of answer you would like to hear!

Answer 5

We are discussing god philosophically it seems to me. Since we cannot possibly discuss him scientifically. Science will never be able to prove that there is no god and it will never prove many many things that we are working on. We don't know if we will ever even definitively prove evolution. We are studying mounds of evidence as we try to learn how the species ascended as well as other evidence that supports theories for the beginnings of the universe and our own planet. We will likely never know all the answers. It's only the faithful that claim to have "the answer" for creation. We make no claims of fact so we have nothing to prove other than to keep investigating the evidence in the hope that someday wi will. You folks are making the claims so you folks inherit the burdon of proof.

Answer 6

Philosophical discourse is a cornerstone of any civilized people. The best philosophers use logic as the basis of their arguments and do not appeal to a higher authority to validate their contentions. Try reading Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Mill, Bentham, Sartre, James, Aurelius, and the dozens of other philosophers who put real thought into their writings (my favorite current ethicist is Elliot D. Cohen, but that may just be because I took some of his classes). Try reading the works of Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Sartre, James, Mills, Bentham, Hume, and dozens of others who have contributed brilliant work to this noble field of intellect. Some really thought provoking stuff there. By the way, science was born of empiricism (a branch of philosophy), religion has yet to spawn anything but wars.

Answer 7

The subject may be of interest to discuss, but unless some evidence can be mustered to bring to bear, such discussion is a waste of time. Since neither the existence nor non-existence of god can be demonstrated, it can be shown that no theory of the existence of god can have any consequences in the real world. Contrast this with a discussion of, say, murder, where the consequences are quite obvious. See also:

Answer 8

"For example, can you proove scientifically that murder is wrong????? Obviously you can't..."

Well no kidding....what you're asking makes little to no sense. You can't scientifically prove that a moral question is right or wrong. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

There's nothing that's not worth discussing....even the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny can make room for debate...if you find anybody that believes in them.

Answer 9

I think it is worth discussing philosophically. I enjoy theological discussions with people that have opposing views from me. However, there are a lot of people running around saying they know what this God likes, thinks, and wants. I show doubt and skepticism to the claims made by religions because they are usually seeking power and money. I don't think people should give them power and money until these religions can first prove God exists.

Answer 10

While you're learning all about atheists, make a note that some spiritual philosophies are also atheistic, and that some atheists have (gasp!) spiritual beliefs that (whoa!) do not include deities.

Science is about the business of mapping out how physical things work. It does not address questions of philosophy, or literature, or even art. It does not posit opinions, it posts hypotheses. Very different things.

Hold a prism up to that black and white world of yours and see if you can't spot the myriad colors shining through. In spite of what commericals may tell you, the real world is analog, not digital. The possibilities are infinite.

Answer 11

"Just because you cannot proove or disprove the existence of God, does that mean it's not worth discussing philosophically"

Right, let's discuss. First, you give us your very best proof for the existence of god. We'll go from there.