+74

Atheists: It is incredibly annoying when theists try to poke holes in science and show how we're stupid to believe that. At least we have evidence, no matter how little, to prove something, all they have is faith. What sucks the most is we can't make this argument back without sounding like another one of those pretentious douchebags trying to shove Atheism down everyones throat, amirite?

83%Yeah You Are17%No Way
Religion
Share
1 16
The voters have decided that this post is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

"What sucks the most is we can't make this argument back..."

I don't think that's the thought process of a lot of atheists on the internet.

And we can't make an argument for our religion without people saying we are shoving it down their throats. Don't try to poke holes in my beliefs and I won't in yours. It goes both ways.

Are you trying to imply that Christians don't believe in science? The only Christians who don't believe the assorted scientific discoveries are hardcore Creationists, which are a very small percentage of Christians. So for you to say Christians in general is somewhat offensive.

In addition, I absolutely hate it when atheists try to use science to support their belief that there is no God. What in science actually provides concrete evidence, or "proof," that there is no God? Please tell me. Is it that there are stars? Oh, yup. That definitely means there is no God. Oh, it must be because of evolution, right? Wrong again. Only Creationists disregard the idea of evolution, which I have already stated are an incredibly small percentage of all Christians. So, for you to use science as proof of your unbelief makes absolutely no sense. Science neither supports the evidence of a God, nor does it contradict the existence of a God.

Also, according to catholic.com, it is written that science and evolution actually coincide with the Catholics' religious beliefs. I don't know, I just think it's rather interesting that the Catholic Church embraces both of these concepts, which so ...

@J_A_C_K Are you trying to imply that Christians don't believe in science? The only Christians who don't believe the...

many atheists use as proof of an absence of a god.

Also, referring specifically to OP, at least atheists have evidence of what? Science? Yes there is evidence of science... Or are you saying that you have evidence that there is no God? Because last time I checked, there is not one aspect of God that science has proven to be wrong. Regardless of whether you use science as the reason for your atheistic views or not, there is no concrete proof that God doesn't exist, so atheists are basing their own beliefs completely off of faith as well. You believe that there is no God, but you do not know that there is no God. Just like I believe there is a God, but I do not know for certain.

@You're missing the point that the burden of proof isn't on atheists.

Why not? For you to say that you think I am wrong in believing in a God, I would want some basis for your opinion. And no, science is not a reason.

If you want to look at it this way, what you are trying to say to me is that...
Put an in orderly format for convenience
1. Having an argument with someone
2. One side says pancakes are better, the other says waffles are better
3. The waffle side asks for proof that pancakes are better.
4. The pancakes side cannot provide proof, because the entire concept is completely subject to each individual's perception.
5. The pancake side asks the other why waffles are better.
6. Waffle side says the burden of proof is on the pancake side.

Atheism and Religion are both based off of two different perceptions of the same reality. Since perceptions are like opinions, being that opinions cannot be proven, why should one side be forced to provide the proof while the other side "wins" if the proof cannot be given?

@J_A_C_K Why not? For you to say that you think I am wrong in believing in a God, I would want some basis for your opinion...

More like we're having an argument:
1. There is an empty plate on a table
2. Person 1 says there are invisible pancakes on it
3. Person 2 says there aren't
The burden of proof is on Person 1, they have to prove the pancakes exist rather than Person 2 proving they don't.

Anonymous +6Reply
@More like we're having an argument: 1. There is an empty plate on a table 2. Person 1 says there are invisible...

Alright, alright. I'll give you that one. You're analogy was probably more accurate than mine.

But even then, I could point to miracles and saints as living proof of the Kingdom of God's presence in our world today,but that's not exactly proof. Those are still left up to each individual's interpretation.

Anyway, I think the burden of proof actually lies on the person who has initiated the argument or is the one trying to change the other's mind.

For example, if an atheist confronts a Christian and says, "How could you be so stupid to believe in God? God isn't real! You should be atheist!" Then the Christian has the right to ask for the basis of the atheist's opinion. Until a credible reason for the atheist's views has been given, the Christian should not be required to defend his own beliefs.

Likewise, if a Christian knocks on an atheist's door and shouts, "Repent, sinner, for God is watching you! Change your ways and convert to Christianity," then the atheist shouldn't be forced to convert when no convincing proof of God has been offered by the Christian.

Your analogy would be different if
1. Person 1 walks up to person 2 and says, "You're an idiot! There aren't any invisi

@J_A_C_K Alright, alright. I'll give you that one. You're analogy was probably more accurate than mine. But even then, I...

ble pancakes here!"
2. Person 2 asks why he should believe Person 1, when there is no evidence suggesting the pancakes do not exist.
3. Then Person 1 says, "Because they don't exist. they aren't there!"
4. Person 2 says, "Yes they are, now provide credible evidence for your assumption."
5. Person 1 can't provide the proof

So, since Person 1 instigated the argument, he should be required to provide the proof.

@More like we're having an argument: 1. There is an empty plate on a table 2. Person 1 says there are invisible...

Would disagree and at its more like Schrödinger's cat in the sense that you don't know if the cat is dead or alive.
Both sides have to prove it.

Atheists: all we have in common is that we dont believe in a god or gods, we dont need to bandwagon on someone else's rhetoric, amirite?

The facts dont care if people believe in them, the universe, the entire fucking cosmos, the billions of stars around our tiny blue dust speck, they dont care if some close minded anti-science douche thinks they were created 6,000 years ago when there is incredible amounts of evidence to the contrary. so why should we?

Anonymous 0Reply
@Atheists: all we have in common is that we dont believe in a god or gods, we dont need to bandwagon on someone...

Because, often times, anti-science people homeschool their children and teach them that the Earth is 6000 years old and block out anything that tells them otherwise. Also, they try to make schools teach this bullcrap.

@eldorito Because, often times, anti-science people homeschool their children and teach them that the Earth is 6000 years old...

Ultimately what does that matter? When a majority of people know differently and the evidence is in your favor. It's nigh impossible to teach those crazy people differently and as for the teaching it in public schools; that is a problem and must not be allowed to happen but other than that, creationist crazy peeps don't really matter.

Anonymous 0Reply
@Atheists: all we have in common is that we dont believe in a god or gods, we dont need to bandwagon on someone...

That's actually very true.

When a Christian tries to convert an atheist, it's because the Christian believes he "is doing God's work" or is attempting to "get into Heaven" or is even concerned for an atheist's impending doom in Hell. Basically, the person's beliefs give him an incentive to actively convert atheists.

However, an atheist trying to convert a Christian is actually really pointless. The only reason why an atheist would want to convert a Christian or beat a Christian in an argument, would be to make himself feel smarter or more important. They have nothing to gain from it, rather than the satisfaction of proving how they were right.
--which is actually the very reason why so many "reddit atheists" even care so much about bashing Christianity.

I'm not Atheist because of science. I'm Atheist because I've always had doubts in Christianity. That's just the way I was born. My point was that when Theists start arguing to an Atheist that because science isn't perfect, there is a god, is stupid. Both sides are not 100% certain, but what I was saying was that it is just as stupid for them to say they're wrong when they don't have proof. Atheists don't have any evidence either, but in my (biased) opinion most science points to Atheism being true. ( I would like to emphasize that I said we had a 'little' evidence)
Anyway I think we should all just not argue about this stuff because people really are born with what they believe in.

Anonymous 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.