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.
Most Helpful Girl
Well there's also no proof there is some deity in the sky either.2
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?"1
- Show AllShow Less