Just one more question for atheists cause I'm bored, if you don't mind?

What's the difference between you denying the evidence for God and someone denying the evidence that science is valid.

And what's the point of being an anti-theist or someone who believes the existence of God is unlikely, if you have no conflicting evidence or arguments? I mean, other than pure denial.

And what's the point of calling yourself an atheist if no one recognizes your "intellectual superiority" other than other atheists who joined the club for the same reason.

Please answer this question in its entirety and do not cherry pick, or mention any holy books.

Sorry if you think this is antagonistic.

Updates:
When I said answer this question in its entirety I also mean provide something other than pure denial. Because, like I said, someone can deny that science is valid and have your same credibility.
How about you guys provide evidence that science is always valid, that should be a good laugh lol.

0|0
9|16

Most Helpful Girl

  • Well there's also no proof there is some deity in the sky either.

    1|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • 1. The difference is that there is not a shred of evidence that god actually exists but there is tons of evidence that science works and that the scientific model of our world reflects reality. For example if Newtons just came up with some bullshit quasi-religious nonsense, we could have never launched rockets into space and travelled to the moon. We also wouldn't be able to build many modern structures. Etc. etc.. We are capable of doing these things which is direct evidence for the correctness of his calculations. The same goes for ALL scientific findings. If Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't true and correct, you wouldn't be able to use a GPS (and other things). If somebody doesn't believe that bacteria exist, he can take a microscope and see for himself. This is not the case with the god-hypothesis. The existence of god is based on personal stories. Religious people would tell you that they had some sort of supernatural experience and because of that, you now also have to believe in god. That's not evidence. It's just a bullshit argument. No astronomer would ever say "you have to believe me that Alpha Centauri exists because I tell you so". They would let you have a look yourself and they would tell you to read the scientific journals and read up on astronomic research, check the calculations yourself and see that it's correct.
    2. Simply put: if god existed and had the power to have an impact on us or our environment (earth, universe etc.), we would be able to scientifically detect him. We would at least have some sort of evidence, even if it's perhaps not very strong. The fact that we don't is almost a certain proof that god either does not exist or is not capable of having any influence on our world, in which case we don't need to care about him either. Also, please note that religious people have had thousands of years to come up with some sort of evidence for their god-hypothesis... and we're still waiting.
    3. I never claimed intellectual superiority and no other atheist I know has ever done that. Most religious people can be smart in other aspects of their lives, which makes it even stranger that they would buy into such a load of rubbish.

    It's okay if you're being antagonistic but I hate the way your phrasing your questions. The last (third) question is one big logical fallacy. It's the logical fallacy called "loaded question". Your making an assumption rather asking an open question. It's like me asking "why are you so dumb?"

    0|1
    0|0
    • Ok, to the original question. The world existing and operating the way it does for the majority of the population is evidence that an intelligent creator exists. What's the difference between you denying this evidence and someone denying the evidence you just posted. Especially if niether of you have anything to dispute the opposition other than pure denial (i. e. "there is not a shred of evidence that god actually exists").

    • Show All
    • @jacquesvol Actually people have never thought the Earth was flat, but if everyone sees evidence fro something, it's up to you to show contradictory evidence. Just because the majority of our population believes that science is valid, doesn't mean science is valid.

    • @TheUltimateUsername Of course, you still did not prove:
      -the existence of your god nor of any other deity.
      -your point that science is invalid.
      (Mankind has invented over 3000 gods yet most people believe the one their parents speak about is the one true god. What a lucky hazard! 1 in 3000)

What Girls Said 8

  • There's a reason why beliefs are called "beliefs"
    None of them on truth until death do us a part !
    That is the only way one will find out.
    I believe life is about living , passing your genes on , and eventually dying like every other creature.
    Of course you can look for other meanings in life , but that is our sole existence.
    Having a religion only allows that "going" process to be easier because you have biblical reasons for your departure from Earth.
    Feeling as if you know , always provides ones soul closure.

    1|1
    0|0
    • *none of them hold truth until death do us a part

    • Show All
    • Most people who believe in a creator consider it a fact.

      fact:

      A thing that is indisputably the case.

      Of course, you're trying to take this into the realm of semantics. And obviously someone is CAPABLE of disputing that science is valid.

    • Asker "most people who believe" is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

  • Difference between denying evidence of God and denying evidence of Science: There is no evidence of God, especially if we're talking about one specific view of God. There's things that could potentially be interpreted as evidence if you look at them right, but generally these things are either of a personal and self-reported nature (so they can't be concretely backed up), or they are explainable by either science or the "we just don't know yet" option. Or at least, that's what I've seen so far. If you have a counter example, feel free to give it.

    Anti-theism/thinking God is unlikely: Most people think ghosts and fairies are pretty unlikely, as would be a magical teapot orbiting the sun, but most of those things can't be conclusively disproven. That said, I think a lot of the time anti-theism does stem more out of dislike for religion for some reason or another than out of actual thought and evidence.

    "Intellectual Superiority": I don't call myself an atheist because I think it makes me smarter, I call myself one because I am one. As for other people, they might well think being an atheist does make them smarter, and if they are that sort of person it generally means they don't really care what religious people think because they think they're less intelligent anyhow. So long as they have some excuse to think themselves intellectually superior, and at least some people to agree with them, they're happy. (Though I will point out that there is actually evidence showing atheists to tend to have a higher level of education, so again even if other people don't acknowledge it, atheists can still believe themselves to be smarter.)

    0|0
    0|0
    • ... Difference between denying evidence of God and denying evidence of Science: There is no evidence that science is valid, especially if we're talking about one specific observation of science. There's things that could potentially be interpreted as evidence if you look at them right, but generally these things are either of a personal and self-reported nature (so they can't be concretely backed up), or they are explainable by either God or the "we just don't know yet" option. Or at least, that's what I've seen so far. If you have a counter example, feel free to give it.

    • Show All
    • I didn't realize there were people that denied the validity of science. If there are, then I guess it doesn't pass their criteria. Denial would just be lacking criteria. What criteria do you need to define something as evidence?

      To answer your 2nd and 3rd questions in your initial question; people are allowed to label themselves whatever they want. Why does their reason have to be logical to you? According to you, logic isn't that great anyways right?

      What are the arguments against ghosts, fairies, and a magical teapot? And you can't use science in your arguments against them, so no cosmological arguments. Since science can't have valid evidence for it's existence, then it certainly can't be used to validate the existence or lack of existence of anything.

    • I deny a god about as much as I deny a qwifidlremra. I was never given a reason to expect either exists. I have never been aware of a prediction that devised a use for me, pertaining to either of them. None of my senses, intuition, or logic pointed me in a direction of either's existence. What should be my next option to give credibility to their existence?

  • I believe God exists. I have unshakable belief in Gods existence. The more i read about evolution theories... the stronger my faith in God becomes.

    1|1
    0|0
  • well... firstly i dont like calling myself an atheist, i consider myself conscious (for lack of a better word), and i believe in science and plausible theories. i dont deny that there is an omnipotent being thats bigger than all of us and impossible to understand, but i dont think that this superior being cares about whether or not I wait until marriage for sex or if I lie to my parents, I think he/she/it would have more important things to worry about.

    People can believe what they want because sometimes all we need is a little faith to get by, but dont shove your faith down someone else's throat and neither will I. I dont understand how people can deny scientific evidence, thats been thoroughly researched and proven. The only evidence I've been of a God is the bible and the equivalents of other religions.. Whoever wrote it obviously wasn't alive to know if it were fact. People fabricate stories all the time, and I just dont think the Bible is a nonfiction book but then again, everyone loves a good conspiracy.

    I believe that Jesus himself was an amazing, spiritual, motivating, highly looked up to and followed man, but a man nonetheless. Not the son of God, but a mortal who had holy aspects. Evidence is scarce, but its what I believe is most plausible and makes sense for reasons I won't get into. I feel like I'm going off on a tangent so let me know if I answered your question.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I'm not quite sure what your point was. You're just not answering the question by denying that there's evidence for God. The bible is never cited as evidence for God, the universe and the way it operates is. Most people don't understand how atheists and *people like you* can deny this evidence. And no, you didn't really answer the question, you just asserted your opinion ala "I deny that there's evidence for one but not the other".

  • I mind don't ask hahahah!

    1|0
    0|0
  • Yes this is belittling atheists.
    But science has proof and evidence behind it. God is just 'proof' from a book.
    and frankly i find half the stuff in it contradicts itself. How can an all knowing, loving god allow so much suffering. And before you say theyve sinned or had a plan etc babies dont deserve the suffering. Theyve barely had a start in life yet theyre expected to die for 'some divine plan'
    sorry but i dont buy it...

    0|0
    0|0
  • Lol "the evidence for God" elaborate with actual evidence. Go on I'd like to see that.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Oh, look. Another religious guy asking atheists why they are atheists.
    You can't prove God. You can't prove shit so I'll be atheist and you'll be whatever you are and we'll all get along I don't see what the problem is

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 15

  • 1. The difference is, science is evidence based whereas faith is based on the absence of evidence and unfalsifiable claims.

    2. The concept of a deity is one thing, but evidence for the God of Abraham is ridden with conflict. Theology is born of man-made scriptures, and one not need to look further back than the advent of Scientology and Mormonism to recognize how easily outright false memeplexes consume societies.

    3. Atheist means one thing - a person that does not believe in the existence of God. This isn't about intellectual superiority, it's about getting a grip on reality and abstaining from spreading "gospel" that overrides logic and reasoning.

    You know who we should be afraid of? Barbarous theocrats who believe that their God is the supreme being, and that all non believers are doomed to eternal torture.

    You know who we shouldn't be afraid of? Reasonable people like Richard Dawkins and Ayn Rand who think objectively and don't abuse moral loopholes. These people won't behead others or pretend to eat the body of their savior.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1. Human intuition is evidence based as well. And believing science is valid, as well as recognizing evidence for something is based on human intuition. You can never find evidence that sceince is valid without using human intuition and faith.

      2. Yes there are many relgions, but they all believe in at least one creator, religion is completely different topic, and shouldn't interjected in this question.

      3. There's no difference between logical superiority and intellectual superiority. Either way atheists fail to justify the superiority their group claims to have.

      Of course we shouldn't be afraid of Richard Dawkins, he's just a douche in denial.

    • Show All
    • You're ignoring the facts. Science is based on evidence. There's a rigorous process of data collection, experimentation, analysis, and peer review that accepts/rejects hypothesis through objective measures.

      This is NOT derived of human intuition. This is NOT a value judgement. In fact, science is a tool that helps us overcome the limitations of intuition and judgement, as already demonstrated (and you stupidly ignored)

      No more games. Demonstrate why science is invalid. From what I've seen, you're way out of your depth here.

    • "In fact, science is a tool that helps us overcome the limitations of intuition and judgement"

      And how does it do this? By using other people's intuition and judgement within this process. In which case science depends on the consensus of the majority because any one individual can be insane, mistaken, or stupid. Most people recognize the evidence for God, anybody who's truly in search of knowledge would never claim that there's no evidence. You sir, are either in denial or insane. Even in this situation you're denying clear logic and coming up with your own definition of what science is.

  • The burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim. If someone claims a deity or deities exist then they must have some really convincing data to back up their claims. If not I have no reason to accept those claims.

    I don't know why you brought science into this question but take for example the theory of gravity. We can test gravitational forces. Hell denying gravity exists is a very difficult thing to do. Without that standard of evidence in science we would have no idea that mixtures like gas is combustible and can power machinery.

    Science is about repeatable and testable data. It's about making incredibly accurate predictions. We don't have to rely on faith to know that if we jump we will come back down due to the mass of our planet.

    Science can reach a consensus whereas in mythology/religion/metaphysics there's no way to narrow down these claims with confidence.

    0|1
    0|0
    • https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=22cYcsVPOok

      This is an entertaining example of what I was talking about.

    • Show All
    • img. photobucket. com/.../Untitled_zpswhpnznnm. png

      Apparently, saying the words "retarded atheists" qualifies as having an intelligent discussion.

      You want Atheists to be adults? You want them to not be a child? Then start with yourself. It's sad that for all that love of God you have, for all that monstrous paintings you make of Atheists, you can't see your own damn reflection. You can't seem to see that you've become the greatest monster of them all.

      Stop being a hypocrite, and go find some help and self-awareness first, that should come first before God. Real advice, man to man.

      I'm officially walking away from this thread. You will not hear anything more from me. Enjoy your life.

    • @kambo_trick3y You know what I agree with you. I'm becoming more like an atheist by arguing the way I do, but at least there's reason in what I'm saying. I'm capable of admitting my mistakes, frustrations and pettiness when I'm caught. But that's more than I can say for you and your kind.

  • I hope I don't come off as antagonistic or offensive to anyone, too.
    1. Because often times denying the evidence for God is not unfounded. There is a logical process at which proof should be accepted or denied. The evidence for God relies on a lot of hearsay and not substantiated proof. In science however, the scientific method forces science to be the closest thing possible to the truth about reality and the universe.
    2. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Cliche, but you could name any fictional entity and substitute it in the same argument. It boils down to the same things. Lack of evidence makes me think that that a God is unlikely.
    3. I'm not atheist due to recognised "intellectual superiority" or whatever you might call it. In fact, no one knows about my atheism in real life.
    If someone joins atheism due to "intellectual superiority", then well, they're free to do so. But don't think for a second that everyone else becomes an atheism for that very reason.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Hmm gimme some Evidence for god that can even come close to the mountains of evidence for evolution and the big bang theory please there's a massive difference between a bit of old text and mountains of fossils records analyzed your using a blatant conflation fallacy there. Furthermore what do you mean there's no conflicting evidence for god there's no conflicting evidence for a invisible unicorn in the sky it doesn't mean i don't believe that's highly unlikely. Finally the only reason i call myself an atheist is because that's what I am and is the quickest way to explain my position, I think your using a bit of a stereotype other than the newly 14 year-old atheist no atheist that I know thinks their "intellectually superior".

    1|0
    0|0
    • There's a lot of conflicting evidence and arguments against an invisible unicorn in the sky.

    • Show All
    • If it wasn't clear the first time I'll say it again: Lawrence thinks the universe cause itself, before it existed.

      Logically, the only possibility is that a free agent began cause the universe to exist. This is not appealing to the law of cause and effect, it's appealing to the only logical possibility.

    • I'm done we're going round in circles this post is old, good day.

  • So many things wrong with your question.

    1) It is not up to me to disprove God, YOU must first prove he exists. Until that point that you can prove without a doubt that he exists he will remain as real as Santa Claus.
    For example, If I told you I have a pet unicorn you would ask me to prove it otherwise you wouldn't believe me.

    2) Anti-theists are just assholes don't pay attention to them.

    3) I don't claim to be intellectually superior. I have my reasons for not believing in the existence of an evil magical being.

    4) Deny science makes you an idiot. Atheists don't deny God, God must first be proven to exist for there to be denial.

    5) Science is always valid because it is based on empirical evidence. God is an intangible concept.

    0|1
    0|0
  • First I am not an Atheist.

    Your first question is just bad. It implies that what some people think is evidence for God is actually evidence for God and not something else. It also confuses a tried and true method of getting to the bottom of things with a claim of what is.

    Second question is also kinda silly. Like why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why don't you believe in everything you have ever heard that does not have evidence to support it's existence other then hearsay. This would be crazy land.

    Third question assumes the only reason to be an atheist is so you can pat your self on the back and be superior. Shows you have not looked into atheism and what it actually is.

    I did not think your post was antagonistic.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Sorry, meant to put this in my original post.

      This is a great YouTube channel to help understand Atheism, it's fun, well made and not antagonistic.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

    • Show All
    • Logically, God had to have began creating the universe and continues to do so as it expands. It is not possible for God to have been created because there is no time in which he could have been created, he necessarily existed forever outside of natural laws. Like I said, this is where the evidence leads. Don't like it? Oh well.

    • watch the video, then watch the other videos on the channel so you can understand Atheism better, you obviously do not.

      The evidence does not lead where you say it does. It actually points to the fact that the universe is an illusion or possibly a simulation.

  • When did science ever make the claim that it was always valid? And what exactly does that claim mean?

    0|0
    0|0
  • God wasn't ever proven, nor was the Bible positively peer reviewed.
    Science was.
    Atheists aren't anti theists: I'm not against the Monster of Loch Ness either , nor am I against Snow white and her seven dwarfs.
    I just don't believe they exist.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Scientists assume that the scientific method is valid, they cannot and have not ever proven the validity of science with science. That's called an infinite regression. But thanks for the try. And thanks for your inaccurate and weird analogies.

    • Show All
    • @TheUltimateUsername
      If you don't know any better than to call 'retarded' people who don't believe like you, this ends the discussion. Insults prove you're out of arguments.

  • Well, to start the difference is the same between faith and fact/theory. Facts and theories can be tested in a scientific manner, while matters of faith cannot. Its this reason why some people say science is valid while religion is not.

    As for the second question, To say one should be an theist just because of a lack of proof is improper because the agument can be made both ways. (Why are you spiritual despite any solid proof of a soul).

    Finally. The purpose of calling oneself an athiest it to provide a lable. Its human nature to catagorise things. The hostile actions that come from one defending thier belief and attacking others comes later, often do to retaliation

    0|0
    0|0
    • "And what's the point of being an anti-theist or someone who believes the existence of God is unlikely, if you have no conflicting evidence or arguments? I mean, other than pure denial."

      You are a good example of an atheist cherry picking in order use denial instead of using reason in an argument.

      All of your other points assume your denial in order to be valid.

    • Show All
    • You assume too much. I am Catholic, with the commen sense to understand both sides of an argument.

      You are a good example of a theist who annoys other theist because of the fall back argument "you're just in denial"

      In regards to the evidence of God, can you please tell me what evidence you are refering to? Preferably some that can be retested and recorded?

    • Lol, so you're telling me you're someone who believes something without seeing evidence for it? Goodbye.

  • Hi, anti-theist here.

    "What's the difference between you denying the evidence for God and someone denying the evidence that science is valid."

    The type of evidence provided by either fields. Religious 'evidence' is entirely anecdotal and has ZERO repeatability, predictive capability, and lacks relevancy into observed reality (religion explanation arises more questions than answers).

    0|0
    0|0
    • Science itself raises more questions than answers, to someone with average intelligence.

    • Show All
    • "what's the point of being an anti-theist or someone who believes the existence of God is unlikely, if you have no conflicting evidence or arguments?"

      To retort, what is the point to believing in something that has not even once presented itself? That's like believing in Santa Claus because NORAD tracks its progress on December. You seem to suggest that there is inconclusive evidence of a God existing. No more reason to rely on faith right? Then go ahead present some.

      "what's the point of calling yourself an atheist if no one recognizes your "intellectual superiority"

      Because being recognized for "intellectual superiority" isn't the reason for one to identify as an atheist..

    • "Science can never explain it's own existence, or that of nature. Theology has done that sufficiently, has been challenged many times, and is still logically sound. If somehow you can logically disprove God, then you can compete, but if not then atheism will as it always has remain a trivial denial of logic and evidence."
      By any chance are you a creationist as well?

  • Let me ask you first why don't you believe in evolution when babies evolve right in front of your eyes to become toddlers then teens and then adults?

    Since evolution is really nore like changing genetically and physically to fit your enviroment so you can survive. It does exist.

    If God created Adam and Eve and placed them on Earth in Eden what kind of snake was the devil disguised as? Because there were no snakes during the dinosaur ages. There are their ancestors that adapted into snakes over time.

    Plus it was possible that there were a population of cavemens during those times so there's no way Adam and Eve came after because they were supposingly the first humans on Earth.

    They were also blood related so they basically had incest to populate the Earth. You know what that means. Since everyone so so could up in religion and believing everything in the bible. Why don't we just die without trying to find our true purpose of what we're meant to do and just believe we can't question the being that "created" using corn or whatever else to make us?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Science doesn't have to conflict with religion.. The staunch young earth model of pseudo science is actually a very recent stance that the church made. It's not an argument church fathers made. They appealed to the mystery of the length of God's creation days, and God methodology.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Is this Kobe23? Please tell me this isn't Kobe23... that guys is a serious wack job.

    0|1
    0|0
    • He argues like him. Always turning to insults.

    • Show All
    • Nice.

      I can almost guarantee you I live a better than you lol. Especially if you spend so much time on Gag. I remember that you said you were homo lol, and you're telling me that I need help in life? Haha

    • And you guys are the ones who went ballistic for months when I really didn't care...

  • Where not denying the evidence for god their isn't sufficient evidence for his/ it's existence. If their was evidence for god than people like Stephen hawking, brian cox, michio kaku, neil degrasse tyson would all be theists but their not. These guys are top level scientists and they base their opinions upon evidence. Given That they are all either atheist agnostic or pantheist I would have to say your full of crap about evidence for god

    0|0
    0|0
    • There are many scientists who contributed more than them who believe in God, you've just picked the most atheist ones. Yes most scientists are atheists, but most scientists who have made significant discoveries and contributions are theists.

    • The scientists I listed are right up there, No I haven't Kaku is a pantheist and Tyson is agnostic. Actually I'm not sure if most scientists are atheists, also Einstein probably the most famous scientist ever ( e=mc2) was a pantheist who did not believe in an afterlife. Many past scientists who were unbelievers wouldn't have been able to come out about it anyway.

    • You're just choosing the most vocal atheists*.

      Newton, Isaac, Einstein, etc. all believed in the evidence for God. They've all expressed that God is what inspired their belief in scientific work. You're response to that is to just have faith that they're lying? And this is what you consider intellectual? This is why you will never be able to convince an atheist.

  • There's no proof of god. People who follow abrahamic religions are especially losing this debate. It's been done thousands of time.

    There's SIMPLY NO PROOF

    1|1
    0|0
    • Show All
    • @TheUltimateUsername
      Indeed, you missed this point too.

    • Are you claiming that atheists are morally superior and smarter than most muslims?

Loading...