Study: Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists

[Mr. X]

We can't prove he doesn't exist. But we can't prove that he exists either.

Therefor, be Agnostic. Believe that a God exists, but disregard all religion created to worship a God that may or may not exist in a unknown form.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Anyone with any level of scientific background can tell you that it's impossible to prove a negative. Atheists, such as myself, don't waste our time trying to disprove the existence of God. We leave it to the religious to prove their God exists.



Faith is what you make it. It's not a concept owned by the religious only.

faith/fāTH/
Noun:

- Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
- Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

We prove negatives in court all the time. It can be done and is done on a daily basis in my profession.

In debate, the burden of proof lies upon the party attempting to change the status quo. The status quo by large is religion. That leaves atheists with the burden of proof.

 

[Mr. X]

Science =/= court of law.

 

[lx_theo]

We prove negatives in court all the time. It can be done and is done on a daily basis in my profession.

In debate, the burden of proof lies upon the party attempting to change the status quo. The status quo by large is religion. That leaves atheists with the burden of proof.

You can't actually prove a definitive negative of a general statement. Even in a courtroom, you won't necessarily know the whole story and others can seem apparent. And you probably never will know the whole story.

Like a murder. You could likely prove that he didn't kill him themself with alibi's and such, sort of like using evolution or big bang arguments, but you can't prove that they didn't instigate the events or cause it in another way. The possibility will always be there. So long as there is a possibility, people who want them to believe they caused the murder will believe that. Its the same as religion. You are asking for certain proof, not evidence against it. There is no proof of a negative like that. Ever.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

I'm just going to leave this teapot here.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[Oryx]

You can't actually prove a definitive negative of a general statement. Even in a courtroom, you won't necessarily know the whole story and others can seem apparent. And you probably never will know the whole story.

Like a murder. You could likely prove that he didn't kill him themself with alibi's and such, sort of like using evolution or big bang arguments, but you can't prove that they didn't instigate the events or cause it in another way. The possibility will always be there. So long as there is a possibility, people who want them to believe they caused the murder will believe that. Its the same as religion. You are asking for certain proof, not evidence against it. There is no proof of a negative like that. Ever.

This claim I believe is pushing it a bit. Case: Did man X stab man Y? Negative proof: Man X was across the ocean when man Y was stabbed - he was seen on a security camera boarding the plane on one end and leaving it on the other, and then went straight to a conference where hundreds of people knew he was there and verified his story. Therefore, man X did not stab man Y. That's proving a negative. Sure, there may be some strange circumstances that means that man X paid man Z to stab man Y, but that's not the point. The point is that it was proven that man X didn't stab man Y, not that man X was uninvolved.

 

[lx_theo]

This claim I believe is pushing it a bit. Case: Did man X stab man Y? Negative proof: Man X was across the ocean when man Y was stabbed - he was seen on a security camera boarding the plane on one end and leaving it on the other, and then went straight to a conference where hundreds of people knew he was there and verified his story. Therefore, man X did not stab man Y. That's proving a negative. Sure, there may be some strange circumstances that means that man X paid man Z to stab man Y, but that's not the point. The point is that it was proven that man X didn't stab man Y, not that man X was uninvolved.

The point of what I'm saying is that while we can disproves specifics, you can never disprove the general idea. Christianity or other organized religions may die if we prove key portions of it wrong, but we don't have the ability to disprove the idea of a creator or anything along those lines.

The assertion that there needs to be complete proof for atheism to have legitimacy is absurd, because it is impossible. As long as a possibility exists, people will fall back on the newly adapted doctrine for their beliefs. The thing is that disproving anything so completely to actually please the types of hypocritical assertions that there is an obligation to disprove other's beliefs is impossible.

 

[Oryx]

The point of what I'm saying is that while we can disproves specifics, you can never disprove the general idea. Christianity or other organized religions may die if we prove key portions of it wrong, but we don't have the ability to disprove the idea of a creator or anything along those lines.

The assertion that there needs to be complete proof for atheism to have legitimacy is absurd, because it is impossible. As long as a possibility exists, people will fall back on the newly adapted doctrine for their beliefs. The thing is that disproving anything so completely to actually please the types of hypocritical assertions that there is an obligation to disprove other's beliefs is impossible.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I firmly believe that atheism requires as much "blind belief" as general religion personally, because since God can't be proven or disproven, each side needs to take a leap of faith (lol@my wording) to get to their viewpoints.

I was just disagreeing that you can never disprove things in a court. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your idea of 'general statement', although in court there's really no such thing as a general statement. There are specific allegations and specific alibis and specific statements of proof positively and negatively, nothing is general, so I don't think the 'you can't disprove general statements' stands up when you compare it to the courtroom.

 

[lx_theo]

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I firmly believe that atheism requires as much "blind belief" as general religion personally, because since God can't be proven or disproven, each side needs to take a leap of faith (lol@my wording) to get to their viewpoints.

I was just disagreeing that you can never disprove things in a court. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your idea of 'general statement', although in court there's really no such thing as a general statement. There are specific allegations and specific alibis and specific statements of proof positively and negatively, nothing is general, so I don't think the 'you can't disprove general statements' stands up when you compare it to the courtroom.

I'm more trying to put ideas and possibilities to their comparable counterparts. If the courtroom doesn't deal with the issues that actually can be compared to whats in question, then the courtroom does not deal with enough issues to be seen as a legitimate comparison of the two, and is therefore null and void argument wise.

 

[Dakotah]

We prove negatives in court all the time. It can be done and is done on a daily basis in my profession.

I'm sorry, but in court, you're not proving anything. What you are doing is convincing a judge or jury that your theory is the more plausible one. You can "prove" your case, but the theory itself could be inaccurate. That's not proving, that's convincing.

 

[c l e a r]

I'm sorry, but in court, you're not proving anything. What you are doing is convincing a judge or jury that your theory is the more plausible one. You can "prove" your case, but the theory itself could be inaccurate. That's not proving, that's convincing.

So basically, even when the story total falsehood and lies, it will fly since I told it good; that's always nice.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

So basically, even when the story total falsehood and lies, it will fly since I told it good; that's always nice.

That's basically exactly it; in a court of law, the argument which seems more likely to the judge and jury based on the evidence given will win, regardless of which is actually correct. People are wrongly convicted all the time, and criminals go free. It happens.

 

[c l e a r]

That's basically exactly it; in a court of law, the argument which seems more likely to the judge and jury based on the evidence given will win, regardless of which is actually correct. People are wrongly convicted all the time, and criminals go free. It happens.

And the good people have not once question on how BS the system is? "It happens?"

You know, there was once a time where jobs and careers meant something, giving something back to society, now it is all about how big the house is, what kind of car I drive, and how much cash I rake in.

Gee, with this kind of attitude, if god ever saw how humanity has winded up, he would flood us for a good couple of centuries and rebuild the sandbox and hope it goes better next time.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

And the good people have not once question on how BS the system is? "It happens?"

You know, there was once a time where jobs and careers meant something, giving something back to society, now it is all about how big the house is, what kind of car I drive, and how much cash I rake in.

Gee, with this kind of attitude, if god ever saw how humanity has winded up, he would flood us for a good couple of centuries and rebuild the sandbox and hope it goes better next time.

Yeah, people question this all the time. However, the problem is that in cases where justice fails like this, it is often not immediately apparent, for the obvious reason that if the case was clear-cut and simple to tell which side was right, the right verdict would be made after all. This sort of mistake tends to happen in very confusing cases where both (or neither) sides have convincing evidence, and it usually doesn't come to light until many years later, because at the time, the verdict given is accepted as right. The only person who knows it was wrong is the person who was wronged, and they can't do anything about it that they haven't already done in the trial. If they have more evidence, they should have presented it, but otherwise it simply means that their evidence was not sufficient.

 

[twocows]

We prove negatives in court all the time. It can be done and is done on a daily basis in my profession.

In debate, the burden of proof lies upon the party attempting to change the status quo. The status quo by large is religion. That leaves atheists with the burden of proof.

No, the status quo has shifted from medieval times. Science has provided us with many insights; there is a reason evolution and the big bang theory are and should be taught in schools, and that reason is because we have strong evidence backing them. Additionally, creation science is not taught in schools because it has not presented reasonably persuasive evidence to lend itself any credibility whatsoever. It certainly hasn't been proven just because there are more religious folk than non-religious folk. That means nothing in a legitimate argument.

Believe what you want, but keep it out of my science classes, please.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I firmly believe that atheism requires as much "blind belief" as general religion personally, because since God can't be proven or disproven, each side needs to take a leap of faith (lol@my wording) to get to their viewpoints.

Do you need to take a "leap of faith" to believe that Unicorns don't exist? (they are mentioned in the Bible btw). Is it a "blind belief" to support the idea that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, faith is "belief that is not based on proof". There is no proof that God exists, ergo believing that it does exist just because someone says so and it's written in an ancient book is faith.

But not believing that God exists is the complete opposite. Not believing in a being whose existence hasn't been proved in any way is not faith, but complete lack of, as you aren't willing to believe in the existence of something without proof.

Otherwise, we could say that the belief that Superman doesn't exist in real life is based on faith because nobody has disproven his existence. Come on.

 

[Ho-Oh]

Oh, another religion vs atheism thread, lovely. I'm Christian in terms of religion, I'm not really religious but I'd trust anyone no matter what they believed in. I mean, even if people didn't agree with my choices I'd still not really care? Like, even though Shining's against the idea of having children, if I were to have children someday I'd leave him alone with my children without caring because I'd trust him. Buuut yeah.

And I'm pretty sure nobody has a sign stating their religion marked on their head, so chances are before they find out they're atheists they trust them.

 

[Oryx]

Do you need to take a "leap of faith" to believe that Unicorns don't exist? (they are mentioned in the Bible btw). Is it a "blind belief" to support the idea that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, faith is "belief that is not based on proof". There is no proof that God exists, ergo believing that it does exist just because someone says so and it's written in an ancient book is faith.

But not believing that God exists is the complete opposite. Not believing in a being whose existence hasn't been proved in any way is not faith, but complete lack of, as you aren't willing to believe in the existence of something without proof.

Otherwise, we could say that the belief that Superman doesn't exist in real life is based on faith because nobody has disproven his existence. Come on.

There isn't proof that God does exist. That's why I'm agnostic. Humans have crawled every inch of this world; if Unicorns existed in the form we know them as then we would have found them by now. The only way we wouldn't have is if they were deep-sea unicorns, which would require huge adaptations that would make them no longer even really unicorns.

Believing that the big bang happened doesn't take faith, it's based on science. Believing that a God didn't create humans the way we are now and we evolved isn't faith. But believing that there's absolutely no God in any form in any way isn't backed up by science unfortunately.

To answer your flawed analogies: Santa Claus lives at the north pole with his elves. We can go there and look for him and see he doesn't exist. We can watch everyone buying presents themselves for their children and no one with sightings of Santa (outside of parents dressed as them) and use that science to deduce that it's very very likely Santa doesn't exist, and if he did exist it would be in a form that doesn't live at the North Pole and doesn't deliver presents, so that's not even really Santa at all.

Superman is a man that has ridiculous superpowers saving the world. No one has saved our world with superpowers yet, have they? Based on the fact that there has never once been any hint of anyone seeing a man with superpowers or with the iconic outfit or anything, it can be assumed Superman doesn't exist. If he did exist, it would be in secret powers that he never used to save the world and didn't wear the costume, which wouldn't be Superman at all.

God is different from both of those in that there's no specific real-world way to determine whether or not he exists. You can't just go to the north pole or look for the costume and say "welp, guess he doesn't exist because every trait of him is missing". The reason I'm agnostic over atheist is because, there's still the possibility that, for example, there is a clockmaker God, the God that created the universe and then sat back and watched it run like a clock.

And before you try to bend your analogies to fit more, yes, I wouldn't immediately dismiss the existence of something that you say exists but you claim can't be seen by human senses, etc etc traits specific to god.[/SIZE]

 

[TRIFORCE89]

The only way we wouldn't have is if they were deep-sea unicorns, which would require huge adaptations that would make them no longer even really unicorns.

Wow! That would be awesome! :D

Believing that the big bang happened doesn't take faith, it's based on science. Believing that a God didn't create humans the way we are now and we evolved isn't faith. But believing that there's absolutely no God in any form in any way isn't backed up by science unfortunately.

I believe the big bang happened. I believe in evolution. But, I also believe in the existence of God. Science and faith don't have to counter each other. I don't think any of the holy books are to be taken literally. They were written at a time where we didn't have formal science. People, being people, have huge existential questions and works like the Bible were an attempt at answering those questions. We know better now. So, for me, religion only comes into play where science hasn't yet provided answers.

 

[Mr. X]

I'm going to (try to) post a neutral belief here.

Both creation and evolution are correct.

God created the planets and all needed material for life to begin. He probably created some of the first primitive lifeforms as well. After that, God gave them the ability to evolve and then watched as life evolved into what it is today.

Basically, its like giving a R & D department a massive amount of funds and no objective. Your going to get, hopefully, a lot of somethings out of it but you will have no idea what they will be.