Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 9 years ago

Atheists and Christians, have you ever considered...?

Please humor me and leave bias at the door step if you can. If there is no evidence for god or against god, don't you think the best stand is a neutral one, not a negative or positive one? Claiming either "there is definitely a god" or "there is definitely not a god" are both false because there is not evidence to support either.

And I know most of the atheists think the burden of proof is on for believer for making the claim, but "there is no god" is also a claim and all claims must be verified. If you say that there is no possibility that a deist or theism exists anywhere or in any form as if you are the authority on the universe while you ridicule anyone who says otherwise, you'd better have evidence to support it.

Also, atheists, have you ever considered that humans are just not scientifically advanced enough to discover evidence of something as complex as an intelligent deity or theism? That would arguably be the greatest discovery in human history. I wonder if it really escaped you that science only goes as far as our current knowledge, and there are discoveries to be made in the future but because we don't have evidence for it NOW, doesn't mean there isn't proof to be discovered.

P.S. I'm not talking about religion or the Bible. Religion is just the human interpretation of the idea of a god and is often flawed. It is not god itself.


Let me reiterate, I'm not saying it is your duty to disprove God just because someone says he is real. But if YOU make such a broad claim that no intelligent creator exists anywhere or in any form, and ESPECIALLY if you make fun of people who believe otherwise, you need to have evidence to justify ridiculing others. Otherwise, you are no different than they.

As for not being advanced enough, consider this... in the 1600's we were not scientifically advanced enough to know about Evolution. There was zero evidence for Evolution in that century. But because humans weren't intelligent enough, and because we don't know, doesn't mean it isn't true. This is why when you are faced with something that has no evidence for or against, you have to be neutral.

No evidence for + no evidence against = we don't know!

Update 2:

@Skepti Try to keep your hissy fits to yourself. If you can't answer the question logically and without emotion or frustration, don't answer at all. Most of your responses to my questions (not arguments) proved you never understood the question in the first place. Instead, as all biased skeptics do, you immediately hopped on the "nuh-uh!" train. Also, I never said "we don't know" = "god did it". Are you even capable of reading comprehension?

11 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Best answer

    Look...I definitely believe there is a God. That is my steadfast belief based upon my own subjective reasoning. I realize it doesn't have to be true for anyone but myself. The same goes for my atheist neighbor. Maybe I see this more objectively because I used to be an atheist. But since there is no scientific evidence for God, I admit that faith is subjective. Belief that there is no God is subjective as well since the fact that there is no scientific evidence to date does not mean that there will never be any scientific evidence.

    Let's say the accumulated scientific data we've found so far represents .01% of all knowable data that is still undiscovered. To draw any final conclusions about anything is...well...unscientific.

  • 9 years ago

    Apparently you don't understand the base definition of atheism. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in gods. It is not a positive assertion that there are no gods. That is "strong" or gnostic atheism, and encompasses only 10% or so of all atheists.

    Atheism, in its basic definition, is simply a rejection of the claim that a god exists due to a lack of evidence FOR a god's existence. It IS the neutral position. There is no middle ground or "I dunno". You either believe a god exists or lack that belief. That is like saying you shouldn't be an aleprechaunist because you can't PROVE that leprechauns don't exist. Yet, I'm sure you don't believe in them, now do you?

    Your other argument is simply an Argument from Ignorance fallacy and thereby dismissible. "I don't know" does not equal "god did it". It simply equals "I don't know...yet". Science LIVES on the "I don't know" scenario. That's how and why we do research- because we don't know something. You don't really get how science works, do you?

    To reiterate, since you seem to have trouble with the concept- the Burden of Proof rests on the person making the positive claim. With the lack of evidence to support the positive claim, the neutral stance is not "I don't know", but rather "I have no reason to believe this is true".

    If I claim there is an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you claim you "don't know" whether or not there is because you can't prove one way or another? Of course not. Unless you are an idiot, you would say there is no reason to believe in said dragon unless evidence was produced.

    Source(s): Biologist
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    First off, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove that unicorns don't exist or that there isn't a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow, but we can infer from the fact that no one has ever seen a unicorn and that rainbows are in fact circular and therefore do not have ends, that neither of these things exist.

    Similarly, we can infer that god does not exist from both the lack of any evidence for the existence of god or anything supernatural, and by the abundance of evidence which suggests that the universe and everything that exists in it could have and likely did come to be the way it is by entirely natural means.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    If humans are not complex or evolved enough to discover evidence of a god then atheists are completely justified in not believing in that god. I could tell you that I have seventeen billion dollars in various bank accounts but until I can prove it to you you are completely justified in calling me a bald faced liar.

    Also, no we are not the ones making a positive claim. We lack belief in a god. Theists make the claim that god exists. The burden of proof is on them. Just as with the earlier example of my, supposed, seventeen billion dollars. You don't have to believe it but you also do not have to prove me wrong. I would be the one that has to prove the claim I made was true.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Life as it truly is, is much grander than anything religion has to offer.

    ‘Gods’ and magic are the most simplistic excuses ignorant primitives have ever imagined explaining anything.

    We could just as well suggest a five-eyed Pixie, with or without the assistance of the local Leprechauns wearing funny masks, did it cos there’s the same amount of evidence... NONE.


    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    "Claiming either "there is definitely a god" or "there is definitely not a god" are both false because there is not evidence to support either."

    Very few atheists seriously make the claim that there is no god. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any of the thousands of gods proposed so far... :)

  • Isa
    Lv 6
    9 years ago


    If you come home to a broken window and a missing TV, you can't technically prove that your TV didn't come to life, rebel and escape by breaking the window. Or that a family of invisible leprechauns didn't cast a spell to make the TV invisible (and the window appear to be broken) as well. Or that the entire situation is an elaborate hallucination.

    But you're going to go with the explanation that doesn't suddenly inject magic, or other ideas completely in conflict with the world as we know it, into your explanation - because you're sane. You're going to assume that your TV was stolen (or, at the very least, that it's NOT a magical illusion created by leprechauns) so strongly as to call it 'true,' not just 'probable' - because that's the degree of certainty that we're capable of attaining about anything, and without recognizing that degree of certainty as 'true,' the concepts of 'true' and 'false' become meaningless.

    The only reason we treat the God hypothesis any different from any other ridiculous magic or superstition is because a lot of people believe in it, which, for most believers, includes their family and immediate community, causing us to put the idea in a biased light. Nowhere else in sane reasoning do we give the "but you can't prove it WASN'T magic" idea any credibility; it shouldn't be any different for the religious brand of magic (and it isn't, for those of us who aren't convinced by crowd mentality or the biases of our peers).

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Straw man argument. Atheists don't believe in 'god'. When you say atheists believe 'there is no god' you are misquoting them and creating a straw man argument.

    It doesn't matter if people aren't sufficiently advanced to know if there is or is not a 'god'. For the atheist, the utter lack of evidence makes the following logical. "I see no evidence of a 'god' so I'm not gong to believe in a 'god' until evidence shows me otherwise."

  • Reaper
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    We know how the universe, Earth, organisms and civilization came around. Where does a god fit in?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    gave some thumbs up, thumbs down, and... damn all the atheists!

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.