ChrisDevl's channel

"What proof and evidence is there that atheism is accurate and correct?"


The question implies that atheism is making a claim. The truth is that atheism DOES NOT make any claims. It is the non-beleif of a claim (the claim that a god exists). The question is invalid, and will remain invalid, until either the TRUE definition of atheism is recognize and the question is restructured, or the questions implied definition of atheism is defined (gnostic atheism, perhaps?).


The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the other way around. It is irrational to justify beleiving in something just because it cannot be disproven. Many things can't be disproven (Such as unicorns and the flying speghetti monster). This is called an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it is completely invalid for discovering truths.


Some people may make the positive assertion that there is no valid evidence for theistic claims. That assertion is completely seperate from atheism however. But if that claim WERE to be proven, the supposed evidence for theism must be brought forth, and then the opposition must provide evidence indicating that the supposed evidence for theism is not valid evidence. Arguing with logic, reason, rationality, and proof and evidence would take place, and logical fallacies and straw man arguments must be recognized and prevented.


Also, atheism is NOT a religion. It's a position to a claim. As thunderf00t once beautifully put it, "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."



"Morality proves god."


Morality can be scientifically explained by evolution.


Objective morality... A moral person does what's right...


...right for what? There can't be a right or wrong way to do something unless you define what that something is.. That's the problem with theists and morality, none of them seem to realize that our "sense of morality" only exists to increase the longevity and pleasure of the species (and therefor all of life). Our sense of morality was evolved, just like everything else.


Creatures with bad morals don't survive long enough to reproduce. Where as creatures with good morals did. (Someone with bad morals dies off due to retaliation from people with good morals.) If a creature is dead, it cannot reproduce, and therefor cannot pass on the 'bad moral' genes or parenting.


Thou shall not kill. Is that universally immoral? What if your life depends on someone elses death? What should we have done with the nazis? It's perfectly fine to kill if it means your own survival. Luckily we live in a world where we rarely need to.


I remember watching an episode of Friends where Joey tells Pheobe that every good deed is selfish because you feel good when doing them. The rest of the episode consists of Pheobe trying to find a selfless good deed, and needless to say, by the end of the episode she fails. Joeys statement was 100% correct; every good deed is selfish. If you didn't feel good doing it, you wouldn't do it. Every decision you make you justify before making it. It's impossible to make a decision you didn't think was the best decision you could possibly make.


We do what makes us feel good. If I knew I could get away with it, I may feel good if I steal someones car, but I'd also feel bad due to the guilt emotion. The pain of guilt would probably outweigh the pleasure of fulfilling greed. We feel a pleasure of satisfication when doing what we think is right, THAT is why we do what's right even if it doesn't personally benefit ourselves (in a way it DOES, emotional pleasure is stimulated).


We evolved with the ability to recognize our decisions and how they effect others. We also evolved with feelings of emotion generated in the brain, which are triggered based on how we think our decisions effects others.

What is generally good for yourself, is generally good for the species. What is generally good for the species, is generally good for yourself. What is generally good for both, is generally good for all of life.


Occasionally flaws occur, just like mutation, but the morals that help the species outweigh the morals that hurt the species. That's the beauty of evolution.

less