Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Something has been bugging me lately and I wanted to share and gauge other peoples opinions on this, mostly to see if they feel at all similar to how I've have felt for a while. What I'm talking about is that for over a year now I've noticed repeatedly that Atheists seem to be the most arrogant, self important, condescending people going. I can't go a day without reading, hearing or seeing something about how those who have a faith (of which I am not one) are moronic and stupid whilst an Atheist is smart and cultured, that they are somehow 'better' because they don't need a god.

I know this doesn't apply to all Atheists because I feel I'm closer to that group than I am an organised religion (agnostic, I like to think their is something more but I think it's just more fear of death than anything else). I just get the overwhelming feeling that their is a constant need to point out how much they think their choice is the best, that others (christians mostly) are inferior and it really has just started to grate on me. Perhaps it's because I'm in England, where we tend not to get many right wing religious nuts to latch onto in the media compared to how it's reported in the USA but I can't remember the last time someone of faith made me feel bad for my lack of faith, but already today I can think of two counts of Atheist superiority complexes.

I know this is a rant and I do apologise for that but I felt I needed to just air out my opinion in a public place and hear others opinions on the matter in return.

EDIT:

I just thought I'd say thank you to those that have responded, I had a fear I would start some sort of flame war but instead I got some very insightful opinions. Also, quote of the thread:

Sonofadiddly:
Pretty much can't be arrogant about religion as an agnostic. Is there a God? Dunno. But there is pizza.

And then we eat pizza.

There's certainly an element of that in any group yeah.

OTOH, atheists do have plenty of legitimate grievance with large organised religions. You don't have atheists with large amounts of secular power pushing their disbeliefs on society at large, whereas a lot of laws are influenced by religious groups.

But, yeah, there's any number of insufferable atheists who've taken Dawkins as their messiah who go around alienating everyone and complain that they feel marginalised.

You're right, there's a pretty decent sized group that acts this way and it's infuriating. I've first encountered it here... To be honest the atheists or non-religious people I know aren't that cocksure of themselves or at least don't project their insecurity to others.

Me: "So you don't believe in God"
Friend: "Yep"
Me: "Just so you know, doctrine says you're off to hell"
Friend: "I don't give a shit"
Me:"Cool, wanna go out and get hammered?"
Friend:"Sure, praise Jesus"

Can't share that experience, but then I am an Atheist, so my point of view differs. It's just that - when it comes to getting involved with other people's personal lives - Christians and Muslims are usually the most intrusive, judgemental and hypocritical in my experience. I would assume it would really depend on your perspective, where you live, whom you interact with etc.. One thing I will say, though: Most ire towards religious folks from Atheists is aimed towards those that are intrusive, judgemental and hypocritical. Co-existence (and even cooperation regarding secularization) with moderate religious people on the other hand is pretty easy and laid-back. *shrug*

I believe it's because of the view that faith of any kind is a coping mechanism to provide comfort for people that can't live without their being a 'greater meaning' handed to them on a platter, so by that logic anyone who has faith would seem inferior to anyone who isn't.

Speaking as an Atheist I, personally, don't get why people are religious anymore. I don't get why anyone would want that, to just accept answers that are given to you by whatever has given to you. I've spent much time pondering why and I still don't understand. I've probably explained that poorly, but that's not the point. Perhaps other Atheists have the same thing going through their heads and given that humans (in general) don't like what they don't understand they feel they should treat it in a condescending, arrogant manner.

I think both sides have their bad tendencies if the person chooses to be obnoxious about it. With atheists it can come out as arrogance or conceit, with religious people it can come out as prejudice or self-righteousness. I'm sure the concentration varies from place to place. I'm in the midwest of America, so I tend to see more of the self-righteous zealots than the arrogant atheists, but they are certainly around and like to make themselves known.

I find them equally annoying because they are both determined to not coexist with others, and it especially makes me angry to know that both sides like to pride themselves on how much good they are doing (the atheists claim their actions are good because if they can get rid of religion that will somehow rid the world of conflict, and the religious people claim their actions are good because they think if they can "fix" everyone with their harsh words they will all go to heaven). Both are hypocritical and terrible ways to approach those goals.

I'm a Taoist and I find any type of fanaticism insufferable.

I agree that Dawkins style atheists are themselves fanatical and have just as much arrogance as any person telling me I'm gonna burn in hell. I find them equally annoying.

My best example of what I would call arrogance from the Atheist camp was this famous campaign...

image

Now come on, that's just trolling. Of course the Christians took the bait and did their own bus.

Everyone's opinion is just that, their opinion. People, atheist or religious should be a little more classy and stop shitting on eachother.

I've never ever argued for or against atheism except with two ex's and maybe one friend and I've never done it in an overbearing intellectually superior way. On the internet I have argued for atheism online but I usually add in a phrase like to each his own because I don't really care if your religious. I mean I'm not the type of person to say 85% of the world is wrong because they follow some type of organized religion.

I however would act intellectually superior if someone where to try and convince me that the earth is 10,000 years old. Sorry, no, that is the biggest bull I've ever heard.

Images:
Now come on, that's just trolling. Of course the Christians took the bait and did their own bus.

Come on, that's really tame and positive, far from "shitting on" anybody. You'd have a point if he did anything to attack religious people. But if that counts as "arrogance" then I don't know what he could do other than just never give a peep. Hell, even tamer were the Americans' billboards with the whole "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."; even that was considered an affront and attack for crying out loud. It often seems like the only way not to cause an outrage is to pretend Atheists don't exist.

It doesn't help that religious people tend to be emotionally attached to their positions, so what are in fact general criticisms of an argument get perceived as personal attacks.

There definitely are atheists who hate religion and think believers are intellectually inferior. A good example is the Atheism page on Facebook (a friend of mine regularly shares their stuff).

However, there are also over-sensitive believers who see the mere statement that you don't think their arguments are convincing (which should be obvious by the fact that you aren't already a believer) as saying that they are stupid for being convinced by them. A good example is the bus thing. It doesn't say believers are stupid, it doesn't even say 'there isn't a God'. It is about as mild a statement as could possibly be made.

It's like if I said 'Firefly is probably overated'. Most people would either go 'meh' or suggest reasons why Firefly deserves its acclaim. True brownshirts, however, would flame me to hell and back because they care about it and it feels like I'm shitting on something they care about, and through that on them, when I'm not. I'm just stating an opinion.

(for the record, Firefly is awesome)

EDIT: also, didn't we do this really recently. I think the 'stop mocking religious people' thread is still on the first page.

I've gotten the same feeling before, often. Then again I've gotten it with plenty of Christians before as well. With that in mind, look back to the past few hundred years when the church pretty much sat on the roost, telling people what was and was not, among other things. They had the authority, now it's reversed. After a while (who knows how long) something else will no doubt coming along and blow the current intellectual authority out of the water, and it'll repeat all over again, in one form or another. Despite the advances we've made in science and elsewhere, there's always more to learn and there's always some willing to just stop at contemporary knowledge and act like they've got it all put together.

Both sides are far too concerned with what the other side thinks.
Who the hell cares!?
Just keep to your belief and live your life.

But tbh, the most obnoxious group i know are the "green people", i know a bunch of religious ppl - they are ok. I know a bunch of atheists - they are ok as well.

But the "green people"? "Oh, i just happen to care with what happens to our earth, therefore i do this and that."

Awesome. Now, why should i care? And lets not forget - thinking at most one step ahead. Ok, so you have solar panel. How the hell do you think they are made? With sunshines and 100% solar power? Dream on hippie!

But i digress... Yeah, every group, or "subculture" has obnoxious people. The more they become the "norm" the higher the chance of encountering a particularly obnoxious one.

Skeleon:
Come on, that's really tame and positive, far from "shitting on" anybody. You'd have a point if he did anything to attack religious people. But if that counts as "arrogance" then I don't know what he could do other than just never give a peep. Hell, even tamer were the Americans' billboards with the whole "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."; even that was considered an affront and attack for crying out loud. It often seems like the only way not to cause an outrage is to pretend Atheists don't exist.

I wouldn't mind the "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" one because it's basically offering support and community to people who feel that way. I can see something like that being necessary in the Bible Belt, where even expressing a few minor doubts can lead you to be ostracized and deemed as bad as Richard Dawkins (given they even know who Dawkins is). While I agree that bus Images posted was pretty tame, there's still a level of smugness to it that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No it's not really negative, per se, but it's certainly smug and a bit condescending.

But you are right that there are certain people in the US who are overly sensitive toward benign expressions of atheism, and under-critical of the obnoxious doings of the ones who are within their own tribe.

One group of people whole heartedly believe in something without a lick of evidence to support it. Another, smaller group of people are skeptical over this something due to its lack of evidence.

IMO it seems fair the latter group would feel pretty smug because they (unlike the other group/majority) possess the intellectual gift of skepticism and critical thinking and lack the antiintellectual fault of dogmatism.

Never had an atheist come to my door to try to convert me before. Never had one tell me, "that's unfortunate", in a pitying tone, when I mentioned to them what I believed (and after they asked, no less, I didn't just come out with it out of the blue). Never had atheists going door to door at Uni to 'explain' the word of the Lord. Never been accosted and threatened on a train by an atheist before.

The religious, on the other hand? All of the above.

Lilani:
While I agree that bus Images posted was pretty tame, there's still a level of smugness to it that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No it's not really negative, per se, but it's certainly smug and a bit condescending.

I just don't see it. The only thing remotely connected to smugness detectable to me is "I think that my view is probably right", but that goes for any billboard regarding religion, politics or ideology in general, really. So in that sense, is it any more smug than the countless "Jesus saves"-ads plastered everywhere that also hold the assumption of being correct about their message? Can you point out what exactly you think makes it "certainly smug and a bit condescending" because maybe I'm not seeing it since I agree with its content or something.

Skeleon:
I just don't see it. The only thing remotely connected to smugness detectable in my view is "I think that my view is probably right", but that goes for any billboard regarding religion, politics or ideology in general, really. So in that sense, is it any more smug than the countless "Jesus saves"-ads plastered everywhere that also hold the assumption of being correct about their message? Can you point out what exactly you think makes it "certainly smug and a bit condescending" because maybe I'm not seeing it because I agree with its content or something.

Hm, interesting. I think I see what's going on here.

The reason I don't see any smugness in those "Jesus Saves" things is because it's not pointing out how wrong anyone else is. I feel like smugness arises when something is more concerned about how wrong everyone else is. I can definitely see that "Jesus Saves" is assuming that it is 100% without a doubt correct, and I can see why you would think that is smug. But I just feel like smugness is more about being deliberately negative. I feel like "Jesus Saves" is only passively saying that atheists are wrong. The statement isn't "atheists are wrong," that is merely a result of the statement, rather than the full intent of it. Where "There is probably no God" is actively saying Christians are wrong--that is its first and primary intent.

Of course we could go on all day about implied purposes, but I'm not really in the mood for going that far in depth, lol. I think there's enough room for both of us to be right and wrong here. It all depends on how much you read into it, I guess.

In New Zealand (where I am from) you are much more likely to hear an opinionated religious person. But here's the thing: we are pretty secular so if you don't believe in a relgion you are considered to be the norm. This is how extreme it is: Where I work there are a 40 people on my wider division - only one is religious (Christian) and everyone considers it to be an interesting thing about him.

Yet the religious put up billboards, pay for ads in newspapers, preach on the street, come to my house and write nasty letters to newspapers all the time - in my personal life I have never encountered an arrogant atheists (well, not people arrogant about being atheists) but I have met so many arrogant religious people.

Images:

My best example of what I would call arrogance from the Atheist camp was this famous campaign...
image
Now come on, that's just trolling. Of course the Christians took the bait and did their own bus.

Yeah, the really famous campaign that is massively misunderstood.

Not only is that campaign offensive (it does say probably, not definitely thus allowing room for personal beliefs, but being correct from a secular point of view - both in scientific possibility and in odds that one specific deity of the tens of thousands humans have worshipped being correct), but it was a response to a Christian advert, not the other way around. The Christians had an ad campaign on the sides of the buses, so a Humanist group and Richard Dawkins teamed up to raise money for an Atheistic campaign in response.

"She expressed her frustration that the Christian organisation JesusSaid.org was allowed to use bus advertising to promote the web address of a website which said that all non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

The Christian response was also either equally as arrogant, or moreso (and at the least more offensive in some cases):

"The new campaign is organsied by the Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. Their pro-God campaigns will run on 175 buses for two weeks from Monday."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/05/atheist-bus-christian-response

image

image

image

But those three are NOTHING compared to this:

image

At least that one got banned, thankfully, but the response was 1) to claim Boris Johnson had gone "a bit over the top" and was being "intolerant" by banning it, and 2) To sue for "breach of contract".
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/anti-gay-bus-advert-banned-anglican-mainstream_n_1423186.html

The group that put up the advert believes such fantastic things as:

"The adverts were booked on behalf of the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davidson, believes "homoerotic behaviour is sinful".

His charity funds "reparative therapy" for gay Christians, which it claims can "develop their heterosexual potential". The campaign was also backed by Anglican Mainstream, a worldwide orthodox Anglican group whose supporters have equated homosexuality with alcoholism. "

"The Rev Lynda Rose, a spokesperson for the UK branch of Anglican Mainstream, said her group adhered to scripture that all fornication outside marriage is prohibited and believed that homosexuals were "not being fully the people God intended us to be". She said therapies endorsed by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues were not coercive and were appropriate for people who wanted to change their sexual attractions, for example if they were married and worried about the impact of a "gay lifestyle" on their children."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/anti-gay-adverts-boris-johnson

So in light of all of that, is it any wonder that Atheists want to hit back? And even when done so mildly and inoffensively, get such responses?

Skeleon:
Snip

Lilani:
Snip

Just quoting you two folks to see if your opinions on this case differ in light of the full facts.

++++

To answer the main point of this topic, and in light of the above post yeah, there may be some arrogant and offensive Atheists, and I really wish that they were not so haughty. It lowers the tone of any discussion between those of faith and those without. But against such barrages of self-righteousness, condemnation and offensive remarks from faith communities, is it really so surprising?

The problem, I think, is that a lot of atheists take their cues from that insufferable ponce named Richard Dawkins. Now, I tend to side with atheists before I side with religious individuals, but Dawkins is the most arrogant prick I've ever had the displeasure to hear words come out of. And my atheists friends who like him turn into similarly arrogant pricks every time the subject of religion enters the conversation.

That being said, I know atheists who don't give half a camel poop whether someone's religious or not. Those people are great.

That's why I like being agnostic, though. Pretty much can't be arrogant about religion as an agnostic. Is there a God? Dunno. But there is pizza.

And then we eat pizza.

Don't you hate it when you claim something and some arrogant prick responds; "Prove it"?

Such arrogance! How can they be so self-righteous and judgmental? Can't they see the evidence is right in front of them? Nothing but a bunch of blind, elitist, ignorant fools!

Ive never met an atheist who has ever wished hell onto a christian ever. No atheist i have ever met has hated christians enough to wish they would enter anywhere NEAR as horrible and disgustingly violent as hell ever. I just dont think they have it in their hearts to feel hate of that magnitude to wish such awful suffering on someone. I sure cant. Ive just never heard anything like it. While "Hell" seems to be the go to threat for the very christians ive never seen atheists wish the level of suffering remotely comparable to "Infinite time in infinite pain" on a christian. Im willing to be shown examples but in general "I think youre stupid" is a whole lot better than "I think you deserve burning needles jammed into your eyes bathed in acid for the same length of time it takes a termite to errode the entire planet by pissing on it" because when people say you deserve hell for being an atheist THATS a laughably NICE place compared to what they are gleefully reveling in the idea of happening to you.

I cant help but feel a little disgusted by people who believe in biblical hell and agree with its existence. Sorry but my moral compass doesnt allow huge amounts of torture or pain even on those who do the worst of wrongs. Especially when said torture NEVER ENDS. I relate to people on a person by person basis though. And for the most part i just dont mention it or worry about it. I know its not real and ill be ok, just the thought of ever hating someone enough to wish them in HELL is so alien to me. I struggle to understand how anyone can honestly wish that on another person and not be a demented sadist who cuts up small animals for fun. Im a little disturbed by and terrified of people who believe its both real and just.

Even with that in mind two wrongs dont make a right. And while ill be sure in my heart of hearts im DEFINITELY morally superior to anyone who thinks torture as a corrective (but not really since it never ends) device is the ideal solution to "people like me" its not nice to behave that way or make people feel like you look down on them. I dont particularly like Dawkins, which surprises many people i talk to this about. Answering anger with anger never ends well.

Religious debates often become nasty; particularly since it is a very person topic. I was raised Christian, but definitely identify strongly with agnostics. I don't know if there is a God or higher power, and I find I don't care. As for atheists being arrogant, I've never found them to be any more or less arrogant then their religious contemporaries.

There are arrogant, irritating, overbearing, hypocritical, fanatical, and otherwise irritating individuals in almost every religion in existence. I think what makes it more noticeable in one faction or another depends on which faction in the majority. Vocal atheists in the United States tend to get more flack then vocal Christian, and there for come across more arrogant.

It isn't really right or wrong, it just is. Personally, I find anyone who tries to force their beliefs on another, calls a person an idiot for their beliefs, or calls a person's beliefs stupid, is an arrogant prat and shouldn't be given the time of day. That goes for the religious and the nonreligious.

I think a large part of the perceived arrogance has to do with what the majority is (and maybe a bit of cultural influence). When a minority speaks up with an opinion that flies in the face of commonly held ideas, it seems there is more perceived arrogance. At least that's what I'm getting from this. It would explain why Josh in NZ doesn't perceive atheist arrogance, as opposed to why someone that was raised in a predominantly Christian environment would see it differently.

Draggoness84:
Religious debates often become nasty; particularly since it is a very person topic. I was raised Christian, but definitely identify strongly with agnostics. I don't know if there is a God or higher power, and I find I don't care. As for atheists being arrogant, I've never found them to be any more or less arrogant then their religious contemporaries.

There are arrogant, irritating, overbearing, hypocritical, fanatical, and otherwise irritating individuals in almost every religion in existence. I think what makes it more noticeable in one faction or another depends on which faction in the majority. Vocal atheists in the United States tend to get more flack then vocal Christian, and there for come across more arrogant.

It isn't really right or wrong, it just is. Personally, I find anyone who tries to force their beliefs on another, calls a person an idiot for their beliefs, or calls a person's beliefs stupid, is an arrogant prat and shouldn't be given the time of day. That goes for the religious and the nonreligious.

Welcome to the forums, and this is indeed a good first impression. I do feel almost obliged to tell you to have fun around here and try not to get too intimidated when things do get rather heated occasionally.

Here's to more good discussions!

Lilani:
I feel like "Jesus Saves" is only passively saying that atheists are wrong. The statement isn't "atheists are wrong," that is merely a result of the statement, rather than the full intent of it. Where "There is probably no God" is actively saying Christians are wrong--that is its first and primary intent.

How could an atheist make a point passively? There's no figure to hide the point behind

In general I attribute the bulk of it to converts being more fanatical than those who just grew up with it. In places where it's the norm, it's not a big deal, but the internet and secularism gaining ground in the US, you'll see a larger number of converts.

Personally most of the Atheists I've met have been rather arrogant; claiming that it's perfectly okay to say "There's no such thing as God" but if you claim "God is real" they'll scream to the heavens that it's "not okay" and you "have no evidence to support your position". Though there are a few notable exceptions, for example a few people on these forums are quite nice and I'd have no problem debating or just chatting pleasantly with them.

Although when Atheists "advertise", the arrogance comes out in full force. Like those atheists that "unblessed" a highway, or those ones that bought out a bunch of advertisement saying "Jesus is as much a myth as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny" in response to the horrendous and offensive... Nativity scene that Christians formerly used the ad space for.

Honestly, most Atheist "advertisements" I see tend to be entirely attack ads. Claiming "this isn't real, this is fake, all you believe in are LIEEEEEEEEEEEES!" Generally, advertisements from other faiths are a lot more uplifting and encouraging. I don't see why Atheists don't try to "spread the word" positively. Instead of condemning old beliefs, they could just celebrate new ones. Instead of purposely trying to damage and destroy things that are considered "holy" to other groups, they can just celebrate what's important to them. For example, instead of saying "God is a myth, christians believe in fairy tales" why not just base an ad campaign around "celebrating ration and reason"?

Ah well, I rarely speak with atheists these days or talk about religious matters, so this isn't really that important to me.

Witty Name Here:
but if you claim "God is real" they'll scream to the heavens that ... you "have no evidence to support your position".

Statements of fact are offensive now? Don't get me wrong, you're free to believe what you want, but there really is no evidence to support that position. That isn't arrogance, that's an accurate assessment of reality based on all the data we have at this time.

Witty Name Here:

Although when Atheists "advertise", the arrogance comes out in full force. Like those atheists that "unblessed" a highway, or those ones that bought out a bunch of advertisement saying "Jesus is as much a myth as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny" in response to the horrendous and offensive... Nativity scene that Christians formerly used the ad space for.

Honestly, most Atheist "advertisements" I see tend to be entirely attack ads. Claiming "this isn't real, this is fake, all you believe in are LIEEEEEEEEEEEES!" Generally, advertisements from other faiths are a lot more uplifting and encouraging. I don't see why Atheists don't try to "spread the word" positively. Instead of condemning old beliefs, they could just celebrate new ones. Instead of purposely trying to damage and destroy things that are considered "holy" to other groups, they can just celebrate what's important to them. For example, instead of saying "God is a myth, christians believe in fairy tales" why not just base an ad campaign around "celebrating ration and reason"?

I guess the problem is that they are taking their cues from Christian strategies of "witnessing" - as someone raised by missionaries and growing up around missionaries of many denominations I can attest to the fact that these pale in comparison to what Christians are willing to say against other religions (and often the "wrong type" of Christians).

Dryk:
How could an atheist make a point passively? There's no figure to hide the point behind

I would consider that "Don't believe in God? You aren't alone" thing to be on the passive side. It's not pointing out with great big flashing lights "Christians are WROOOONG!" it's just asking if you don't believe in something, and saying that there are others who feel the same way. I think it's about the most positive way to convey the message. It's not in any way condemning or shaming those who disagree.

Aris Khandr:

Witty Name Here:
but if you claim "God is real" they'll scream to the heavens that ... you "have no evidence to support your position".

Statements of fact are offensive now? Don't get me wrong, you're free to believe what you want, but there really is no evidence to support that position. That isn't arrogance, that's an accurate assessment of reality based on all the data we have at this time.

God is real, and that's a fact.

See the problem with that? You're saying "God isn't real and that's a fact" because... Of reasons or something. I'm saying "God is real and that's a fact" because "of reasons or something". You have no evidence to support your position either. It's not a statement of fact, fact is an indisputable answer backed up by evidence and testing. What you're stating is a hypothesis, and nothing more.

Witty Name Here:
God is real, and that's a fact.

See the problem with that? You're saying "God isn't real and that's a fact" because... Of reasons or something. I'm saying "God is real and that's a fact" because "of reasons or something". You have no evidence to support your position either. It's not a statement of fact, fact is an indisputable answer backed up by evidence and testing. What you're stating is a hypothesis, and nothing more.

You don't prove things don't exist. You prove that they do. Any god has precisely as much evidence as to their existence as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and unicorns. You can find that offensive if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the truth. If you disagree, offer proof. That's how science works. Attempting to defend your position by claiming that atheists have no proof may make you feel better, but it isn't a defense. Because, again, you do not prove that something doesn't exist.

Ugh. Here we go again labeling X group as Y.

Call it condescending, but I pity people with faith. Having been brainwashed and not being able to break free from it? It is terrible, and I would know, having formerly been a brainwashed Christian as a child. As for arrogance, I can see why atheists think they have at least the moral high ground, having not brainwashed anyone into thinking things they can't prove. About the intellectual high ground, that varies, but not believing in something that does not have evidence is a pretty good high ground.

An atheist that still believes in psychics or something similar however, has absolutely no high ground.

Aris Khandr:

You don't prove things don't exist. You prove that they do. Any god has precisely as much evidence as to their existence as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and unicorns. You can find that offensive if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the truth. If you disagree, offer proof. That's how science works. Attempting to defend your position by claiming that atheists have no proof may make you feel better, but it isn't a defense. Because, again, you do not prove that something doesn't exist.

Every miracle, many of which are well documented, could count as proof of God.

For example, there are over 67 miracles associated with Lourdes. Medical examiners have noted each miracle, and could provide no logical explanation for the miraculous healing.

Here's just a sample of one:

Vittorio MICHELI

Born on 6.2.1940, in the Province of Trento (Italie)

Cured on 1.6.1963, in his 23rd. year. Miracle on 26.5.1976, by Mgr Alessandro Gottardi, Archbishop of Trento.

On 16th. April 1962, Vittorio MICHELI, a soldier in the Alpine Corps, was admitted into a hospital in Verona for the diagnosis and treatment of an obscure condition of his left hip. After various tests, ineffective treatment and also a biopsy, the dreaded diagnosis of a malignant tumour, a sarcoma, was made on 4th. June.

For a whole year he remained under the care of the Military Hospital and Centres, although no anti-mitotic, surgical, medical or physiotherapeutic treatment was applied.

Deterioration, both locally and generally went on relentlessly, with total destruction of his hip joint. But he still undertook a pilgrimage to Lourdes with his Diocese in June 1963.

During the pilgrimage, nothing notable happened, except that he bathed, encased from pelvis to foot in a plaster cast.

On his return he appeared to be in better shape, but because he was doing his military service, he was obliged to go back to his starting-point, i.e. the Military Hospital of Trento.

More X-rays were taken there, and in a way difficult to comprehend, they were incorrectly interpreted, being considered identical to his former ones. This accounts for why it was 6 months after the pilgrimage before proper notice was taken of his excellent health, absence of pain, ability to walk and finally "the remarkable reconstruction of his hip" the first signs of which had already been present 5 months before!

Each year since 1963, Vittorio has visited Lourdes. In 1967, the Medical Bureau saw no reason to delay admitting that "it was impossible to give any medical explanation for this cure ".

In 1968, the International Medical Committee postponed its decision, after hearing Prof. Salmon's report. It was only in 1971, a lapse of 8 years, that this Committee confirmed the verdict of the Medical Bureau of Lourdes.

On 26.5.1976,13 years after the cure, Mgr Alessandro Gottardi, after taking into account the favourable advice of his Canonical Commission, declared that this cure contained "sufficient evidence for the recognition of a special intervention by the Power of God, Father and Creator".

Naturally, Vittorio MICHELI keeps on coming to Lourdes, working as a brancardier in his diocesan Hospitalite.

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles4.html

So, after taking a visit to a sacred site associated with healing of the sick, a man's hip bone is miraculously reconstructed with no medical explanation give towards why he would make such a miraculous recovery. This is evidence for the existence of God.

Atheists, on the other hand, have had zero, absolutely zero evidence to prove God does not exist. By your own logic, would that not mean that Atheism is false, and that the existence of God is a fact. After all, there's more evidence pointing towards God's existence, then his lack of existence. Your position, it seems, holds no ground in fact or reason.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here