I have to disagree about the burden of proof. They make these extravagant claims that they believe give them authority over others. If someone says they are King of the world, I think they need some evidence to accept the throne. This is dangerous, as I have stated before.
On your Kantian and Utilitarian examples I must apologize. I over looked them. They are idealistic extremes however I think you can be a little more pragmatic. I think do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good place to start. I do not think this would be objected to by the majority of civilization. This simple rule that is evident even in other primates I think would serve humanity well. I don’t know if you could advance morals any further, nor should you have to.
Demanding submission is not the same as religion:
Back when you were at church, what percentage of the congregation believed they had authority over you or others? How much of this authority was voluntarily given and how much was demanded using faith as an excuse?
I make extravagant claims that people have a right from being murdered. I believe that right has authority over other. One the other hand people that grab power they do not deserve is not limited to religion nor is it a necessary characteristic of a religion.
Burden of proof:
1"The burden of proof is on the believers."
2"Why is it on them?"
1"Because we should always assume the negative prior to evidence."
2"Doesn't assuming the negative draw its credibility in science because it works to ensure the correct given sufficient time? Doesn't this require that the positive be able to have evidence if it were true? Why would we assume the negative when it is not useful?"
So, as a pragmatist, you find idealistic extremes to be sources of immorality. Both of those moral codes started with a golden rule premise and yet, without Religion being involved, they come to conclusions you find immoral. It is the desire to do good combined with a mistaken idea of what is good that is the source of evil. Religion is merely a subcategory that is a useful scapegoat for atheists. We need to recognize this cognitive bias and compensate for it in order to think rationally about the true source.
The golden rule (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.) is a good premise when trying to answer what ought one do. However it fails to answer the question (What ought you would others do unto you?). In fact, the golden rule makes no claim about murder. It merely says that you ought only murder if you ought would others murder you. We should not be so arrogant to assume that following our hedonistic desires is moral. Therefore in the pursuit of moral action, we need humans need to go deeper into moral philosophy. Otherwise they are clinging to an assertion that does not have sufficient evidence.
In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.
.....
So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Saying "not having evidence to existence" and "not having evidence to non existence" are equal is an absurd and inverted way of thinking. In science, you don't have to show evidence that something does not exist, but the opposite. You care about measuring the non-existence of materials only if there is a scientific reason that it could exist in the first place which is not the case of god.
You missed my point. The key difference between science and theology is:
Science:
IF the positive were true, THEN there could be evidence of it being true.
IF the positive were false, THEN there could not be evidence of it being false.
Theology:
IF the positive were true, THEN there could not be evidence of it being true.
IF the positive were false, THEN there could not be evidence of it being false.
In science the lack of evidence for the positive is evidence of the lack of the positive.
In theology the change in the truth tables results in the lack of evidence for the positive no longer being evidence for the negative.
Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheism at all.
Again you missed my point:
They do not have equal probability. 1 has 100% probability and the rest have 0%. However it is unknown which is the 100%. Lets say I chose a card from a deck (without any red face cards). The card I picked has 100% of being the card I picked. The chance of it being Red is not 37.5% The chance of it being red is either 100% or 0% depending on my choice.
Also, when did I claim it challenged Atheism? I am an atheist. If I can say the above and still be an atheist, then either I am dumb or you are making irrational leaps in your conclusions.
Finally, did you know that Science must not be used for everything? It is improper use of Science to attempt to use it for any type of knowledge that cannot be discovered through falsifiable hypotheses.
The rest of your point is uselessly off topic due to the above misunderstandings
Edit: Quote bound fixing
