Why do atheists act superior when they have no scientific proof of their own beliefs?

[ManOnFire]

The atheist believes “God does not exist.” They want the religious to provide proof of belief, yet, they have no scientific proof to justify their own leap-of-faith beliefs. They’ll say “you can’t prove a negative” (that God does not exist), but this claim ASSUMES that God must not exist. What if He does? If He DOES exist, then, naturally, they can’t prove he doesn’t exist. One must first assume that His non-existence is true, for then their claim that one cannot prove a negative would be true, but this assumption is based on a claim, not the truth. Any way you look at it, the atheist has no scientific proof to justify his/her beliefs. What a hypocrisy. At least the agnostics are being intellectually honest.

 

[AntiTheist]

The atheist believes “God does not exist.”

Actually, atheists correctly observe that there is insufficient evidence that any gods exist.

I don’t accept that your god is real for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Hindu gods are real: there is insufficient evidence.

They’ll say “you can’t prove a negative” (that God does not exist), but this claim ASSUMES that God must not exist.

No. It is based on the correct observation that claims that have insufficient evidence to support them are far less likely to be true.

In fact, this is how you go about determining whether or not things are likely to exist. When presented with a claim like “Thor exists,” you naturally start out by examining how much evidence there is to support this claim. When you discover that the only evidence is a bunch of ancient stories – and a bunch of modern pagans who claim to have “felt” the presence of Thor – then you can correctly conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

 

[ThomasToo]

In fact, this is how you go about determining whether or not things are likely to exist. When presented with a claim like “Thor exists,” you naturally start out by examining how much evidence there is to support this claim. When you discover that the only evidence is a bunch of ancient stories – and a bunch of modern pagans who claim to have “felt” the presence of Thor – then you can correctly conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

Notice also that the supposition ‘you cannot [conclusively] prove Thor does not exist’ does not assume that Thor does not exist or for that matter that he does it is simply a base epistemological supposition.

 

[scottm]

ManOnFire – If you’re going to play the science game, you have to follow the rules. You’re the guy with the thesis: “God exists.” It’s your job to come up with a way of testing that thesis scientifically. That means you need a test that will produce (a) repeatable (b) observable data in (c) the natural world.

 

[colmcille1]

Very good post, manonfire! The “act superior” part, for a start is good. One need look no further than some of the clowns who daily display their superior attitudes on these forums.
Said clowns even have the gall to “act” outraged when their “beliefs” are somehow misrepresented. As if an atheists “beliefs” were worthy of serious contemplation!
And, of course, said “beliefs” are a poor joke. I am reminded of the writer whose comments on literary critics was: ‘A critic is a legless man who teaches running’.
Having trawled through a truck-ful of atheists posts on this website it is my conviction (and please God I pray I’m right) that behind all the bluster, the cleverality, the sarcasm, the delusion, the sheer bloody-mindedness there lurks a desire. It is an aching thirst.
And, in time, they will see that this thirst can only be quenched by Him.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[antroji]

Colmcille speaks rightly in that only God can quench the thirst of one who feels the thirst for relationship with Divinity. But I might add that both denial or affirmation of the mere existance of God is insufficient, as too strong adamantine concretized faith is as much a hindrance as an energetic denial. Both protest too much and rely on the literalism of appearance, one of science, and one of dogma.

Inquiry and humility are another matter. Knowing that God is ALL and realizing that THAT is intellectually incomprehensible goes a long ways towards discovery. It’s not to deny the usefulness of thought, or of faith, or even in a strange way, denial. Denial might yet be of the anthropomorphisms we have created in ignorance for our own self satisfacton around Diety. What if and atheist is somone on their way to right relationship with Divinity by way of sloughing off wrong ideas about God? This is where the scientific attitude might have anadvantage, as it affords of admission of error and corrrection wheras inexhorable dogmatic faith may not have its teleological twin, compassion; not for ignorance, but for the struggle someone not of our lights might be having unawares.

So perhaps some tolerance and dialogue might be more useful than outrigtht condemnation. We can have that for ideas that by our lights are false, but we might attract more folks to our way if we engage them where they are at and at least are able to correctly give them back their own arguments in our own words. Tact and diplomacy, especiallly in a forum where tone of voice and body language are absent, might be an avenue for change where emotions and name calling might fail.

 

[colmcille1]

The search for Him necessitates the abandonment of the ego. Such is the pervasive influence of a secularised world that we feel “lost” without the much-indulged ego when we are challenged to put it aside.
The search for Him is both interior and exterior.
As part of the exterior search such sites as these afford a good opportunity to “meet” with minds formed from a wide variety of influences.
There is no perfection here.
There are many voices but, with respect, antroji, it is unreasonable to assume that “tact and diplomacy” should be the raison d’aitre of this site.
Not that I am dismissing those qualities out of hand.
Yet it is in the ego-free private zone where the final assimilation must take place.
And if these forums help to erode the “act superior” rock (or any other seemingly insurmountable human mountain) then surely it can be said that it has done it’s job.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Atheists act superior because they are arrogant.

The source of atheism is arrogance, people feeling too good for religion, mocking acts of piety and thinking we do so much for a mirage. So that they act superior just goes in that vein.

Remember, arrogance is the reason why Satan fell.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

What an excellent question.
I’m very curious to see what atheists will write as a response.

My brother is agnostic and he explained to me that there is no proof of God’s existence so no reason to believe. I said that there is no proof that He doesn’t exist. He agreed. So I asked why he lives like an atheist. He didn’t have an answer.

I also think that arrogance is behind it
Atheists that I know either belong to the ‘you can’t scientifically prove it’ camp, or they ‘feel there is no God’. When challeneged they get upset but don’t offer a satisfying intellectual account of their beliefs. So on the basis of my personal experience I’m not very impressed with atheists and agnostics.

 

[stenlis]

If you’re talking ‘arrogance’ - look no further than your own ranks:

Very good post, manonfire! The “act superior” part, for a start is good. One need look no further than some of the clowns who daily display their superior attitudes on these forums.
Said clowns even have the gall to “act” outraged when their “beliefs” are somehow misrepresented. As if an atheists “beliefs” were worthy of serious contemplation!
And, of course, said “beliefs” are a poor joke. I am reminded of the writer whose comments on literary critics was: ‘A critic is a legless man who teaches running’.
Having trawled through a truck-ful of atheists posts on this website it is my conviction (and please God I pray I’m right) that behind all the bluster, the cleverality, the sarcasm, the delusion, the sheer bloody-mindedness there lurks a desire. It is an aching thirst.
And, in time, they will see that this thirst can only be quenched by Him.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[ManOnFire]

ManOnFire – If you’re going to play the science game, you have to follow the rules. You’re the guy with the thesis: “God exists.” It’s your job to come up with a way of testing that thesis scientifically. That means you need a test that will produce (a) repeatable (b) observable data in (c) the natural world.

No, actually I don’t. The religious, like me, simply have Faith in our beliefs. God has never scientifically proven himself to me, but that’s OK with me. I , have made it my individual choice through free will that I personally don’t require proof in order to BELIEVE, but the atheist, by definition, DOES. The Atheist made this individual choice of definition for him/herself.

The Atheist wants me (who does NOT require proof) to prove to him (who DOES require proof) that my beliefs are valid to him when it’s none of his business how I individually determine my BELIEFS, yet the atheist has ZERO scientific proof of his own beliefs, when he has individually and free willingly defined proof that “God does not exist” as being necessary for belief. Think of the irony and hypocrisy.

 

[ManOnFire]

What an excellent question.
I’m very curious to see what atheists will write as a response.

My brother is agnostic and he explained to me that there is no proof of God’s existence so no reason to believe. I said that there is no proof that He doesn’t exist. He agreed. So I asked why he lives like an atheist. He didn’t have an answer.

I also think that arrogance is behind it
Atheists that I know either belong to the ‘you can’t scientifically prove it’ camp, or they ‘feel there is no God’. When challeneged they get upset but don’t offer a satisfying intellectual account of their beliefs. So on the basis of my personal experience I’m not very impressed with atheists and agnostics.

The longer I live, the more convinced I am that the difference is that we Americans and Eurpoeans are simply spoiled by relative wealth and free will. Being Catholic is a difficult, yet rewarding, Covenant for behavior that promotes True Love between people if followed correctly. It can’t guarantee someone else’s behavior. This is the part that the spoiled and fearful can’t handle: they might get disappointed one day by one of us other sinners. So, they free willingly choose to take their self’s way out by living by their self’s rules, then wonder why no one else wants to live by their rules.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

This is the part that the spoiled and fearful can’t handle: they might get disappointed one day by one of us other sinners. So, they free willingly choose to take their self’s way out by living by their self’s rules, then wonder why no one else wants to live by their rules.

I see what you mean. Also, people want to invent rules and ‘morality’ that suits them and ‘feels’ right. No danger of failing, no sin.

 

[Kaninchen]

A tendency to being patronizing knows no boundaries on message boards.

 

[JohnDamian]

The Atheist wants me (who does NOT require proof) to prove to him (who DOES require proof) that my beliefs are valid to him when it’s none of his business how I individually determine my BELIEFS, yet the atheist has ZERO scientific proof of his own beliefs, when he has individually and free willingly defined proof that “God does not exist” as being necessary for belief. Think of the irony and hypocrisy.

I am afraid this is just incorrect.

An atheist has got scientific REASON to not believe in God. Because; in the absence of evidence one can rationally take the position there is no scientific reason to base ones life on something unproven.

An atheist does not need PROOF that God does not exist; any more than the atheist does not need PROOF that other “supernatural” entities exist; in the absence of evidence the Atheist takes a position that does not assume God; hence the position “A(without)Theism(Belief in God)”. Because the atheist has no scientific reason to believe in God; he lives his life without accepting God. His position is neutral.

Atheism is not living like presupposing that “God does not exist”, it is living life with the view that “there is no scientific reason to accept God; thus until evidence arises I shall live my life without believing in God”.

Not believing something is different from believing in something. It is clearly distinct that to “not believe in God” is different from “believing God does not exist”. The latter of these is a positive claim; the first of these is a negative claim; this negative claim is verified as rational by the methodology many Atheists presuppose (ie; Science) - which is to not believe in something with NEITHER evidence OR reason.

This is not to say that I don’t believe in God; or that indeed I adhere to scientism; merely that it is imprudent, rude, incorrect and ambiguous to misinterpret the Atheist worldview. You will never convert someone until you understand what they believe.

 

[wanstronian]

No, actually I don’t. The religious, like me, simply have Faith in our beliefs. God has never scientifically proven himself to me, but that’s OK with me. I , have made it my individual choice through free will that I personally don’t require proof in order to BELIEVE, but the atheist, by definition, DOES. The Atheist made this individual choice of definition for him/herself.

There are, I suppose, two ‘types’ of theist (although this is an arbitrary taxonomy for the purposes of my point - don’t bother to flame me). The first simply believes in God, and goes quietly about his business. I have a colleague like this, who admits that there is no proof that God exists, and it’s just a matter of faith. We get on just fine.

Then there’s the other type who, on forums such as this, post ever-more-ridiculous ‘proofs’ for God’s existence which are, without exception, full of holes and prove nothing more than the inability of the poster to think rationally.

It is this second type of theist who gets the attention of the atheists on this forum and others. It is this second type of theist whom my Christian colleague abhors and whose arguments he finds preposterous.

For me, God’s existence boils down to a balance of probabilities. Despite what some theists may claim, there is no objectively convincing evidence for God. All the ‘evidence’ boils down to one of a few basic fallacies. Therefore on balance, there’s no more reason to believe in God than in anything else for which no evidence exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, to the same extent and for the same reason that I believe fairies don’t exist.

Furthermore, as science has advanced over the years, many religious convictions have been shown to be false. As science disproves the supernatural explanation for a phenomena, one is (or should be) forced to rationally reconsider the existence of the alleged supernatural being who caused it.

Although there is no hard and fast evidence that God doesn’t exist (which is why I, for one, would never claim it as a definite, for then I would be as irrational as those theists who claim he definitely does exist), there is no good objective reason to suppose he does. This is, I think, the default position of most atheists. We wait to be convinced, but we won’t accept any old bunk - we want evidence, to a standard appropriate to the claim being made.

The Atheist wants me (who does NOT require proof) to prove to him (who DOES require proof) that my beliefs are valid to him when it’s none of his business how I individually determine my BELIEFS, yet the atheist has ZERO scientific proof of his own beliefs, when he has individually and free willingly defined proof that “God does not exist” as being necessary for belief. Think of the irony and hypocrisy.

Well, I personally don’t want you to prove to me that God exists. I couldn’t care less whether you try. But if you publically claim that he does, for example on a forum like this, then you are implicitly inviting a challenge. You may not need proof, but if you want people to believe your claim, then you have to accept that they do require it. If I told you that I can fly, would you just believe me, or would you need proof first?

And if you try to prove it and fail, then you should, and generally will, have your failings exposed. Like all other theists who have tried!

I have zero scientific proof that God doesn’t exist. This is true, but it’s not the point. The existence or otherwise of the supernatural, by definition, can’t be proved by science. (What we do have is scientific proof that actions ascribed to God were nothing of the sort.) The best that science can do, and which it has done many times over the years, is to move the supernatural into the realm of the natural by explaining it. Earthquakes, lightning, precipitation are just a few examples of this.

Of course, this will never be satisfactory for theists, for whom a belief in a loving, creating, listening (amend list as applicable) God is part of their implicit worldview. God will always be beyond the reach of science, for that is where theists have placed him. Their default position is “God exists, therefore it is a shortfall of science that it cannot prove his existence,” which is a clear example of poor thinking.

I think your claims of irony and hypocrisy are misplaced, but I doubt I’ve convinced you of that in this post. Ultimately, fervent theists will continue to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Young-Earth Creationists are an outstanding example of this, but in fact, it’s quite widespread: where scientific fact conflicts with an individual’s belief, the individual tends to simply reject science. It’s astounding, but it happens - not just for religious beliefs but for others, like homeopathy, reiki and so on.

 

[inocente]

Actually, atheists correctly observe that there is insufficient evidence that any gods exist.

I’ve known a number of atheists who believe in ghosts, astrology, reincarnation or what-not, the reasoning often being that “there must be something in it”. They then don’t believe in god(s) for the opposite reason. Go figure.

These “spiritual atheists” are sometimes highly educated, but tend to have an arts background rather than science or engineering. Some are enlightened by a Jainist type of belief that every soul is sacred, and are severely disinterested in scientific evidence as mere tittle-tattle. Of course, they tend to be arty types and so can safely be ignored.

 

[wanstronian]

I’ve known a number of atheists who believe in ghosts, astrology, reincarnation or what-not, the reasoning often being that “there must be something in it”. They then don’t believe in god(s) for the opposite reason. Go figure.

Yep, it’s inconsistent. I don’t think anybody’s rational about everything all the time. I, for example, am convinced that all wasps are out to get me…

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Yep, it’s inconsistent. I don’t think anybody’s **rational **about everything all the time. I, for example, am convinced that all wasps are out to get me…

What is rationality? Can you prove that it exists?
Is it perhaps a constructed concept, bound to specific philosophical context? Why rely on an abstract concept that can’t be proven to exist?

Just a thought.

 

[Leela]

Hi all,

I am dismayed by the antipathy toward nonbelievers displayed in this thread. I suppose that is why there is, as far as I know, still a ban on such threads.

At any rate, as Christians, I think you must believe that God knows exactly what sort of evidence that would convince any atheist, but he chooses in his infinite wisdom not to provide it at this time for some reason that we may not have access to. God must then have a purpose even for those of us who do not yet believe. We are like Paul before the road to Damascus who have not yet had the benefit of having the scales removed from our eyes through divine intervention. We are then, if anything, to be pitied rather than despised. In the Christian view, you have been given a gift that we atheists do not have. If so, we deserve your compassion rather than to be demonized.

As for arrogance, yes, I do see some of that, but I see no more of it among atheists than among theists. This thread itself is a perfect example of the bigotry that atheists face at the hands of many believers. Jesus said that we will know you by your love. I’d sure like to see it. Believers will be far more convincing if that prophecy ever comes true.

Best,
Leela