Have you ever noticed that atheists criticize people instead of religion or religious ideas?

For example, they’ll criticize people for believing in miracles and assume that miracles aren’t possible

They’ll criticize people for believing in prayer and assume that prayer doesn’t work for people

They’ll criticize people for believing in a God and assume that he doesn’t exist

It’s like they’re miserable with their life and want everyone else to be on their level, whether they’re open about their beliefs or not. They never actually address religious beliefs with facts, they never actually disprove something, yet they want everyone to bow down to their personal criticism. It’s fucking annoying.


A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.


The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

Atheists, can you actually use science to support your criticism, and if not please stfu forever.


It doesn't have to be buildings, it could be cars or anything else that fits the same criteria, something that's useful and complex.


Most Helpful Guy

  • Yes, I agree. They are the biggest hypocrites.


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • And here you are, criticizing atheists instead of their beliefs. The hypocrisy of the situation is almost hilarious, if it weren't for how tragically misinformed and bigoted your opinions are.

    • Im criticizing their actions. Why do you cry injustice when you get a taste of their own judgement? Don't you think that's hypocritical?

    • Show All
    • Well you could just say that those buildings arrived there by random chance.

      I'm done talking to you, clearly there's just
      something that isn't "there" with you and were not getting anywhere, so goodbye.

    • Only if we don't already know things proving that that random chance is pretty much impossible. And we don't know those things about the universe or about Earth. How often do I have to explain this until you understand that your idiotic comparison just does not work?

      Thank you. You're a sexist bigot who can't get the most basic of concepts through their skull, so I'm happy to oblige.

What Guys Said 10

  • I have three words for you: Burden of Proof.
    I could go on a long time about your question but it's actually very simple: you are completely misinformed. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on the atheists. This has nothing to do with ideology by the way, it has been an accepted pillar of both, logical rhetorics and science for hundreds or even thousands of years. If somebody makes a claim, he/she has to provide evidence for that claim. For example when Einstein published his theories on relativity, he didn't just force them upon the world and say "if you can't disprove me, I'm 100% right!" It was quite the opposite. He had to provide extensive explanations and evidence for his claims. The same goes for Newton or Darwin or Marie Curie or any other science in the past or present. This rule is even applied in court trials. If somebody (e. g. federal prosecutor) believes that you are guilty of a crime, he has to provide reasonable evidence that you are, in fact, guilty. There is no free democracy in the world where the judge just kind of goes like "oh, you can't prove that you didn't commit this crime? Well then you've got to be guilty!" In fact, the rule of proving a claim goes so far that they even established the legal rule of "innocent until proven otherwise".
    If we apply this rule on god, it goes like this:
    You are basically claiming that god is "guilty" of existing. Hence, you have to prove it. If you can't provide evidence for your claim, that means is not guilty (not guilty is NOT the same as innocent).
    If the world would function the way you think it does (with sceptics having to disprove stuff), then anyone could come up with the most absurd claims and people would have to accept it. For example I could say something like "there's a pink unicorn that told me it's okay to steal all your possessions. Oh, you don't like that? Well, disprove to me that the unicorn exists!" Of course that's total nonsense. How are you supposed to disprove that unicorns exist?
    And it works just the same way with god. You make a claim, you believe in some. Atheists don't say god certainly doesn't exist. We say "we doubt his existence". If you want to establish god's existence as a fact, you have to provide evidence.

    • Religions is not about proving god: religion is about believing without proof.

    • I understand that. And that's partially why I reject it. Unfortunately, most people just like to believe in stuff because it makes them feel good. If I believe in something, I wanna know it's true.

      But that's not really the point here anyway. @kobe23 complained that atheists don't provide any proof for their believe that god doesn't exist (it's actually more a doubt or a rejection of the notion of god, not a believe that he doesn't exist). So I needed to point out that the burden of proof lies on religious people who actually believe this stuff.

  • I mean when I was in my Philosophy class everyone was religious and they constantly called out Dawkins for criticising religion because "it was rude", while they all backed religious blokes who criticised atheism "because they're speaking for what they believe", but whatever.

  • Isn't this the second question you've asked today criticizing atheists? Move on bro.

  • Can you name so miracles that happened recently?

    • They happen all the time for me. Life itself is a miracle tbh.

    • Show All
    • My definition of a miracle, at this point in time anyways, is: Anything that happens without a process, or anything that happens with a process but the process cannot be recreated to get the same result.

      For example - The event is: Every living thing does not need to consume anything for 1 year. If no process is found to explain why/how it happened, then it would be a miracle. If a process is found, let's say feeding 1 specific cat orange juice, if we were to feed that cat orange juice again, the event wouldn't happen. That event would still be a miracle.

      That was a very simplistic example, but hopefully the message got through.

    • So I guess based off my definition I would mostly side with 2) and possibly 4) given what could be defined as recreating a process. 3) could be true in my definition, but favor isn't required.

  • Have you also noticed that Christians criticise Atheists too?

    So shut the fuck up and get a proper life instead of your obsessive hatred of people who do not have the same bloody mindset as you do.

  • I'm fairly certain we use science all the time to prove certain facts and criticism. But at the same time you say we criticize people for believing in God yet you all criticize us for not believing in him combined with a threat.

  • both atheists and religious people are guilty of this

  • Just want to say that fuck your religion. Religion nothing more than a made up stories with it's followers who never shut up about it for thousands of years.. Now these sheep followers gets angry now that there are people who questions the legitimacy of religion...

    Remember. Humans did not advance from Religion and never will because it's a fallacy.

  • ok how about this, millions of starving children in the world and Children born deformed in constant pain? how do you justify that? I mention children because they can't have done anything wrong to 'deserve' punishment not that any human being should suffer so poorly but how does an all protecting God protect these? Or is the God discriminatory? Christians say god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The very fact these horrors exist either means a god doesn't exist or the god that does exist is nothing like religions depict and is infact a cruel God either concept is pretty scary

    • Google unjust God, know you'll be able to find an explanation...

    • Show All
    • Well I'm a theist, and I think you're an atheist troll.

    • you're the worst kind of theist. The kind that has no counter argument and instead brings up something completely irrelevant

Loading... ;