Now I’m no theologian, politician or even economist and I can accept when I may not have all the answers. That’s why I love the process of debate, when done well everyone learns something and we all come away better informed, even if we can’t agree.
That being said, I can’t stand atheists. Not because I think they are wrong but because, for the most part they suck at debating.
In my experience atheists fall back to one intractable position, that of “prove it and I will believe” or “I will believe nothing without empirical evidence”. And to be honest that is an unassailable position so long as you can prove your own position using the same set of criteria. But atheists can’t do that, instead they will invariably respond with something along the line of “I can’t prove God doesn’t exist because I can’t prove a negative,” which is essentially saying that you can’t prove your own position and for the purposes of that kind of debate an admission of defeat.
Now of course, I’m going to get comments on this, lots of them saying that I can’t prove my position either and that’s true so really the Atheist versus Theist debate from a scientific point of view at least is dead in the water.
And that’s why I can’t stand atheists – they turn the debate into something it isn’t.
You see the debate isn’t about provable science, it never has been. Indeed most of what we call “science” today would never have developed had it not been for the work of many devout theists. No the debate is about philosophy and “science” or what we can prove physically has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy.
Unless and until atheists recognize that their position is actually a philosophy and not a provable scientific fact then the debate is a non-starter and I’m not interested.