A Challenge to atheists for 2016

[Shaker]

If that's the case, you'll be able to provide evidence for it.

That doesn't strike me as tremendously difficult.

Firstly, we only know of such a thing as the physical realm - anybody who thinks there's anything else apart from the physical realm is of course perfectly free to provide what they think of as their evidence for it coupled with their methodology as to how this thing is allegedly known and claims/assertions about it evaluated. This has been asked for so many, many, many times with constant evasion from the acolytes of such a worldview that I won't be holding my breath, but the floor remains theirs.

Secondly, morality is a property or feature - a behaviour - of a certain class (a very, very, very small class, actually) of physical beings who operate according to physical laws. Whatever physical creatures do is controlled by the physical realm - if you think otherwise, the first point above applies.

[Gordon]

If that's the case, you'll be able to provide evidence for it.

Easy-peasy - all our opinions about rightness, wrongness, beauty, preferences, dislikes (etc etc - e.g. thoughts) are an aspect of our biology, in that only in our brains do these thoughts and feelings occur.

If you have an alternative source of our thoughts and feelings then do tell: evidence and methodology included please.

[splashscuba]

Well, I've already mentioned a number of issues aspects of life that scientists - including some here - claim that science does not deal with, such as right and wrong.

That doesn't convince me that a supernatural realm exists

[Outrider]

If that's the case, you'll be able to provide evidence for it.

Easy - describe a moral situation that doesn't occur in the physical reality... Morality and ethics only exist within the perception and understanding of animals, and animals are part of the physical reality.

In order for there to be morals or ethics outside of the physical reality, there'd have to be some sort of evidence for the existence of something outside of the physical reality, and as yet that's not been provided.

O.

[Hope]

Easy - describe a moral situation that doesn't occur in the physical reality... Morality and ethics only exist within the perception and understanding of animals, and animals are part of the physical reality.

Morals and ethics may only exist in the physical reality, but they are developed and actioned in non-scientific frameworks.

[Hope]

That doesn't strike me as tremendously difficult.

Firstly, we only know of such a thing as the physical realm - anybody who thinks there's anything else apart from the physical realm is of course perfectly free to provide what they think of as their evidence for it coupled with their methodology as to how this thing is allegedly known and claims/assertions about it evaluated. This has been asked for so many, many, many times with constant evasion from the acolytes of such a worldview that I won't be holding my breath, but the floor remains theirs.

And none of the opponents of the idea that the physical realm is only part of reality have managed to produce anything to prove their viewpoint.  That is the problem; our knowledge of reality is so minimal that much of what we hold to is held to by nothing more than faith.

Secondly, morality is a property or feature - a behaviour - of a certain class (a very, very, very small class, actually) of physical beings who operate according to physical laws. Whatever physical creatures do is controlled by the physical realm - if you think otherwise, the first point above applies.

And you have evidence to show this?

[Hope]

The problem with all the answers provided so far take assumptions as read, as opposed to checking that they are actually valid.  Not the most scientific of approaches!!

[BeRational]

Hope

That is the problem; our knowledge of reality is so minimal

How do you know?

Perhaps if string theory is correct and we figure it out, we may know everything.

Unless you already know the totality of reality,you cannot asses how far off we are.

[Outrider]

Morals and ethics may only exist in the physical reality, but they are developed and actioned in non-scientific frameworks.

For the moment. I can see circumstances where they might - might, not necessarily will - be an expression of neurology. For the moment, though, human thought and activity is so complex an activity that we cannot work accurately at the macroscopic level with it.

O.

[Outrider]

And none of the opponents of the idea that the physical realm is only part of reality have managed to produce anything to prove their viewpoint.

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof again. It's not for 'materialists' to disprove the existence of anything else, it's for the claimants of other systems to demonstrate that system is valid.

That is the problem; our knowledge of reality is so minimal that much of what we hold to is held to by nothing more than faith.

No, quite the opposite, the problem is that people think that faith is the equivalent of knowledge. We have no idea of how comprehensive our knowledge of reality is, given that we have no capacity to measure the extent of what we don't know. What we do know is that we can't presume our knowledge is lacking because people have faith in things in the absence of evidence - that faith shows nothing about reality or our knowledge of it.

O.

[Shaker]

And none of the opponents of the idea that the physical realm is only part of reality have managed to produce anything to prove their viewpoint.

Hello negative proof fallacy, I thought I'd see you again today.

And you have evidence to show this?

Sure, it's called science, physics especially.

[Nearly Sane]

Hello negative proof fallacy, I thought I'd see you again today.

Note it isn't just a negative proof fallacy, it's also a strawman in that saying that you need evidence for a claim is not a denial of it as is being represented by Hope.

[jeremyp]

The problem with all the answers provided so far take assumptions as read, as opposed to checking that they are actually valid.  Not the most scientific of approaches!!

The problem with your example is that you were asked to provide evidence of something supernatural, which moral principles are not.

We can observe moral principles. People articulate them or write them down. People let them affect their actions. In this way morals are scientifically observable, even ofd we do not know where they come from. And science may yet find an answer to that question.

[splashscuba]

Still not convinced

[Red Giant]

Morals and ethics may only exist in the physical reality, but they are developed and actioned in non-scientific frameworks.

This is only because our brains are too irrational to make any sense.  Our problem is that when we work out sensible answers, we tend not to like them.  Often because they aren't to our advantage. 

Sometimes the answer is that we should take the pills and the world will be better off without us.  Our problem is to find an excuse to ignore that logic.

If you want science to come up with convenient falsities, it won't deliver.  That's what religion is for.

[Leonard James]

If you want science to come up with convenient falsities, it won't deliver.  That's what religion is for.

Succint and on the ball! Brilliantly observed!