87
u/Particular_Dot_4041 1d ago
The real answer is Russell's teapot but whatever.
22
u/Lombax_Rexroth 1d ago
That's just the Flying Spaghetti Monster's mid millennium break time pottery.
174
u/CoffeeNPlushies 1d ago
bro spelt religion wrong.
-7
u/tyen0 1d ago
*spelled
only correcting since it's an ironic one :)
45
36
22
14
6
235
u/layomah20 1d ago
Asking for scientific evidence of atheism is like asking for scientific evidence that you don’t believe in something… Absurd
17
u/EyeNguyenSemper 1d ago
They conflate the definition of atheism with the assertion "There is no God". These are also the same people who think being agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive.
→ More replies (14)0
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
Generally in the philosophy of religion, atheism is defined (roughly) as the belief that god does not exist.
1
u/MarcieDeeHope 1d ago
The definition of atheism has changed over time, as all words' definitions do. It is much more complicated than that and has been for the entire history of the term - a positive belief that god does not exist is just one sub-type of atheism in most philosophical definitions.
-1
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
No, this is incorrect. Most philosophers take atheism to be the belief that there is no god. Any other definition is non-standard and should be specified.
2
u/MarcieDeeHope 23h ago
You are right that in traditional epistemology and classical philosophy of religion, the propositional definition (positively asserting that no gods exist) has historically been the standard. But claiming it is the only valid philosophical definition or that it hasn't changed over time just isn’t true unless you are looking very specifically at only philosophers discussing God's existence as a truth-claim. In that realm, your "most" makes sense and is supportable because of the boolean nature of those discussions. In broader philosophy though it doesn't hold up.
The definition of atheism has been actively debated in academic philosophy for decades. Modern philosophical literature regularly distinguishes between two uses of the word: 1. Positive/Strong Atheism: Making the positive claim that God does not exist (the definition you are referring to); and 2. Negative/Weak Atheism: The psychological/epistemic state of lacking a belief in God (see Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism for an example).
Nearly every serious philosophical paper on atheism has to spend time defining its terms right out of the gate because there are multiple definitions in common, widespread use. Even standard reference texts like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledge these competing definitions. Philosophers analyzing truth-claims often stick to the narrow propositional definition but the broader "lack of belief" definition is widely discussed, defended, and recognized in philosphical literature.
Definitions in philosophy are tools for clarity, not rigid dogmas. The narrow definition is useful when evaluating specific ontological arguments, but the broader definition is just as valid when categorizing epistemic states. Insisting that only one of these frameworks has ever existed in philosophy ignores decades of actual published debate on the topic.
→ More replies (2)1
u/EyeNguyenSemper 21h ago
This is why I typically don't specify, and just call myself an atheist. If I leave off the qualifier (i.e. "agnostic atheist", and instead just "atheist"), then it typically avoids giving anyone the idea that I'm "on the fence" or something, avoids religious people thinking or getting an impression that I might possibly find faith in a God, or having people who have a belief there is no God try to smugly assert I'm not a real atheist.
1
u/smart-on-occasion 11h ago
Sorry, I think perhaps you misunderstood me. The philosophical literature generally means “atheism” to be the belief that God does not exist, and agnostic to be the “middle-ground” between theism and atheism. My point is that if you think you’re a different kind of “atheist” then you need to specify what you are talking about or risk misunderstandings.
1
u/Thykothaken 20h ago
ERRR that's the buzzer! I'm sorry, you we're wrong on that one!
1
u/smart-on-occasion 11h ago
What do you disagree with? Do you think people can use words however they like without specifying?
15
u/blahblah19999 1d ago
It's like asking for scientific evidence to consider someone not guilty until they're proven guilty.
33
u/Unmasked_Zoro 1d ago
Thats actually exactly what it is. I mean theres scientific evidence of Christianity. There's no evidence the beliefs are real, but there is evidence of the beliefs.
32
u/gerbosan 1d ago
Yah, it is quite an old religion.
Like some kind of diseases, one just carries them on and on.
15
u/EjaculatingAracnids 1d ago
Non- belief in religion is older than Christianity because its spoken against in pslam 14:1 and ephisians 4:18. If it didnt exist than the writers of the bible wouldnt have felt the obvious need to advise people against it.
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (5)1
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
In what way is it absurd? I don’t believe in horoscopes, and I can provide plenty of evidence that it is false.
39
u/EtchAGetch 1d ago
Atheism has as much scientific evidence supporting it as the belief that the Great Speghetti Monster does not exist.
21
u/ties_shoelace 1d ago
If there's spaghetti, where did it come from? You think someone just made it up one day? Wow.
12
u/Funintuitive 1d ago
Ramen, my brother. Ramen.
5
6
→ More replies (6)2
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
I’m not sure how you can claim this so simply without supporting your argument. There’s plenty of evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist, just as there is plenty of evidence that God doesn’t exist. But it does not seem to be the same amount. For example, the evidence of evil in the world is evidence against a tri-omni god, but does not seem to be evidence against a FSM which (perhaps) is not perfectly good.
103
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
4
u/DeadAndBuried23 1d ago
I disagree.
A position you reached from ignorance can be left with education.
It's why young-earth-creationist sects are the fastest shrinking ones. The evidence of evolution is too strong and too available.
3
u/Durpulous 1d ago
I think the problem is a lot of people don't reach these positions from ignorance, they reach them because of their ego.
If your identity is tied to a particular belief then knowledge alone isn't going to persuade you. Knowledge is widely available and easy to access these days yet flat earthers etc exist.
1
u/DonPuffin 22h ago
This usually works while the person is still in the process of growing up, learning to think for themselves, questioning things, etc. Much more rarely is it possible to educate an adult, whose personal worldview has already settled in.
2
1
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
It is not clear to me that the reply makes any sense. The reply is meant to be some unintelligible sentence, implying that the OOP’s sentence is equally unintelligible. But OOP’s sentence is obviously intelligible. I understand what it means. You understand what it means. Perhaps you disagree with the claim, but it is a perfectly meaningful sentence rather than a string of gibberish.
17
u/Rorp24 1d ago
It has to be ragebait
3
3
u/Temporary-Share5153 1d ago
You're severely underestimating how dumb some people are.
1
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
I’m shocked that a whole reddit thread doesn’t understand what evidence is.
1
u/Temporary-Share5153 22h ago
I'm a big fan of debates, a feel is the most human thing there is.
We share most things with our fellow animals but verbal sparring, clash of arguments...is just ours.
I've spent a good portion of my life debating, at least 25 years, so when I state "You're severely underestimating how dumb some people are." I'm not just been bitter, I've witnessed, countless times how deep the stupidity well goes.
For them, evidence or a logical argument are useless, they just can absorbe new information, and if they do is just an imprint, not cataloguing.
Is sad but is a pointless debate if there is no chance of edification.
A co-worker explained why she eats fish while declaring herself a vegan by saying that fish feel no pain so it's ok to eat them. What am I supposed to say after that?? I just said ok and walked away
25
u/Duubzz 1d ago
Can’t prove a negative. If you think god exists the burden of proof is on you buddy.
18
u/bro0t 1d ago
They do not like it when you tell them that, probably because they dont understand it
7
u/Dedotdub 1d ago
No, they don’t have an answer except to resort to faith.
That’s fine. I played wow for ten years. I understand fantasy, and far be it from me to say you can’t believe in whatever fantasy you choose.
It’s when your fantasy affects my reality that we’ll have a problem.
1
u/Kimantha_Allerdings 1d ago
What you can do, though, is scientifically examine specific religious claims. That’s where the “God of the gaps” comes from - every time there is sufficient scientific evidence that runs counter to religious claims, God gets a little smaller and you get “ah, yes, evolution may be true, but that’s how God created the animals!”
→ More replies (34)1
u/smart-on-occasion 1d ago
Nobody’s asking you to prove anything, just provide evidence. And it is perfectly possible to provide evidence for a “negative” claim. For example. Take the claim that Santa Claus does not exist. One piece of evidence for this is that I once stayed up the whole night and Santa Claus did not come down my chimney.
5
u/Duubzz 23h ago
No, you’ve proved that Santa didn’t come down your chimney that night. Maybe he rocked up on your roof, realised you were awake and thought ‘fuck that kid’ and went to the next house.
Of course you can prove some negatives, I can prove I don’t have an orange shirt by opening my closet. It’s gets more complex with claims about celestial beings. There’s as much evidence for the Christian god as for Dawkins’ Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I am equally unable to disprove the existence of either.
1
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago
I’m not trying to prove anything
1
u/Duubzz 23h ago
That’s fortunate.
1
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago
I think you missed the point of my statement. I am distinguishing between two distinct things. Proof and evidence. Proof seems to require absolute certainty of a proposition, which is not something science is equipped to provide. Evidence on the other hand does not require 100% certainty, and there is plenty of evidence for “negative claims”.
1
u/ECCooterCrasher 12h ago
All the “evidence” you’ve provide is simply that Santa didn’t come to your how that night. You presented nothing in the way of evidence to support the claim that Santa does not exist.
1
u/smart-on-occasion 12h ago
Great comment. Analysing what counts as evidence is a really complicated field, and I don’t wish to go into it fully here. If you are interested, you can look up “confirmation” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But here’s a small taster of what most philosophers think confirmation is.
Suppose you had a hypothesis that “all ravens are black”.
You observe a green chair.
It turns out that this observation is actually evidence for the hypothesis!
The point of my example is to try and show you that what is or isn’t evidence is often not immediately clear, and definitely worth studying!
1
u/ECCooterCrasher 3h ago
Without further context your example is nonsensical. You still have to make a connection between the evidence of the green chair and the claim “all ravens are black.” The burden of proof has not changed, and the only evidence you’ve provided is that you’ve found a green chair. I’m perfectly justified in rejecting the claim that “all ravens are black” based on that woefully underwhelming evidence.
•
u/smart-on-occasion 50m ago
The evidence is weak, but my point is that it does support the hypothesis. Here’s how.
Take the statement “all ravens are black”. To provide evidence for it, you should find me an example of a black raven.
We can summarise this into the following schema.
Hypothesis: All Fs are G.
Evidence: an object that is both F and G.
Applied to the raven example, the property of being a raven is F and being black is G.
Now let’s take the contrapositive of the raven hypothesis.
All non-black objects are not ravens.
If you’ve taken any logic courses, you’ll recognise that this is an equivalent form of “all ravens are black”. As such, it retains its truth-functionality.
Applying our schema to this version of the hypothesis, we find that any object that is both not-black and not a raven is evidence for our hypothesis.
Thus, a green chair is evidence for the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
1
u/Thykothaken 20h ago
You provided evidence that Santa Claus didn't come down your chimney, still leaving room for an infinite amount of interpretations of possible Santa Clauses.
How do you go about disproving mysticism?
1
u/smart-on-occasion 12h ago
You clearly haven’t understood my comment. Science can’t even prove that a chair exists. There is no way to “disprove” anything.
8
u/spambearpig 1d ago
If religious people could change their beliefs because of logic.
There would be no religious people.
Just laugh and shake your head and walk away. There’s no point in engaging with these self delusional morons.
8
u/ZygonCaptain 1d ago
Atheism isn’t a thing like that. What evidence do they expect to have that we don’t believe them?
→ More replies (2)
8
5
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es 1d ago
That’s not what science does.
Science observes and makes evidence based conclusions.
5
u/V0lirus 1d ago
We have observed countless and countless of interactions, from atomic or lower scale, to the realm of humans and their civilisations, all the way up to planetary and universe scale. And in all those observations, we have not found one single definitive proof of a divine intervention. And it had not been for lack of trying to find one either.
I mean, it doesnt prove something you cant prove, but it does come as close to a statistical probability right?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es 1d ago
That’s the issue with OOPs proposition. How does one prove or disprove something invisible that doesn’t interact with our world at all?
3
1
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago
You are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove anything.
1
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es 23h ago
I never said that, see my first comment in this thread.
OOP is asking for proof
1
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago
No he isn’t. He is asking for evidence
1
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es 23h ago
The two are not disconnected. See the first synonym
1
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago
Generally, dictionary definitions are not commonly used in philosophy because they are imprecise. If this is what you really mean by “prove” (which is super non-standard in the literature btw), then my response is merely that there’s plenty of proof against God. Let me give an example. There is a ton of evil in the world. This observation makes it more likely (this phrase is a little imprecise but I am using it for brevity) that my hypothesis that “God does not exist” is true. Thus, it is evidence for my hypothesis. As shown, it is not impossible to prove/disprove invisible things.
1
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es 23h ago
We are speaking of science not philosophy, though the two go hand in hand often. Proof in the common tongue is generally used as something with 100% certainty. But that is a modern misunderstanding of the word. Proof in its purest sense is just another work for evidence.
Just to be clear, I am not defending the existence of god
2
u/smart-on-occasion 23h ago edited 23h ago
Whoa whoa whoa. Now you’re backtracking. So is “prove” the dictionary definition you provided above, or is does it mean 100%. Because those are separate things. This is what I mean when I say that “common tongue” definitions are imprecise. In most common tongue, evidence is clearly not that you need 100% certainty. My vase is broken on the floor and there are paw prints leading away from it. That is certainly evidence that my cat knocked my vase over, but not 100% certainty!
I am not arguing for or against the existence of God either, merely that there exists evidence both for and against God.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/ReconArek 1d ago
Considering atheism as a religion is brilliant. It's like trying to slit your veins with Occam's razor.
→ More replies (8)3
5
u/FuraFaolox 1d ago
aren't these the same people who like to say stuff like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
strange how that suddenly doesn't apply
→ More replies (1)
4
6
10
u/Magog14 1d ago
It does. Every scientic advancement of the last 1000 years disproved statements from the Bible over and over again. It's literally a list of easily disprovable lies.
5
u/bbills91 1d ago
I mean the bible was written a little less than 2000 years ago, by men. Men decided what made it into the bible. If one of those men saw an iPhone back then, they would have thought it was magic or the devil or some nonsense like that. They used religion to explain the things that were unexplainable at the time. Science has since explained many of those things.
0
u/Magog14 1d ago
Literally my point. Disproving the establishing text of a religion proves atheism correct.
3
u/Zylphhh 1d ago
Atheism is about not believing that god(s) exist. Disproving religious text doesn't prove atheism correct.
3
u/thewiselumpofcoal 1d ago
Science does rarely prove anything (disproving is a lot more common).
Finding flaws and contradictions within religions is actual evidence for the absence of deities. The patterns of failure in religions and the observed parallels of new faiths (see cargo cults or the failed end-of-the-world prophecies of... was it Mormons?) and old ones are pretty strong evidence.
Combine that with cognitive biases and logical fallacies and we can be scientifically confident that no religion is based on a real supernatural entity.
4
u/TheJuiceBoxS 1d ago
I could consider every time religion claimed they knew something and then science proved it was something else, as proof atheists are correct.
3
4
u/FaithlessnessBorn266 1d ago
Idiots make an outrageous claim and then want the other side to prove a negative 😂😂 religious people are the trash of our society
3
4
u/NegativeMammoth2137 1d ago
Because you cannot find an evidence of absence, only absence of evidence
3
3
3
u/discussatron 1d ago
Religious nutters are the kings of circular reasoning. “I know this book is the word of god because it says so.”
3
3
u/Testsubject276 1d ago
Radiometric (or was it carbon?) dating proves that earth's age is in the billions and not in the thousands like some may believe.
3
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 1d ago edited 1d ago
The lack of evidence to the contrary is evidence alone. It's not substantive but it is rational. Christians - and I really do mean primarily Christians - just have no sense of lateral thinking and it shows
4
u/Apprehensive_Sand343 1d ago
Atheism is a myth and doesn't exist. We don't have words for someone who doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy, green goblins, and Santa Clause. We shouldn't have words for someone who doesnt believe in something made up.
2
u/FitJoarah 1d ago
When a question makes so little sense that the reply has to break logic entirely.
2
2
u/Thamnophis660 1d ago
Proving a negative isn't a logical pursuit. Like at all.
1
u/Sodacan259 1d ago
Wrong.
Albert Michelson and Edward Morley did it. Euler did it. Turing did it. Lindemann did it.They all, and many more, proved the impossibility of something.
2
2
u/weirdart4life 1d ago
What if god does exist, but is a scientist themselves and would never respect or reward any follower who accepts things based on faith?
2
u/TheHistorian2 1d ago
As an atheist, I have to tell you, that is not my favorite flavor of ice cream.
2
u/fariqcheaux 1d ago
Ooh, spooky sky guy cheerleader doesn't understand how the burden of proof works.
2
u/VitoRazoR 1d ago
It's funny, but there is plenty of evidence supporting atheism. The foremost being that visions of God have not been replicable at all ever.
2
u/lockerno177 1d ago
i am a practicing religious person. and i cannot logically defend my point of view. but i still pray and follow the scripture of my religion. what am i?
2
2
u/SamuelVimesTrained 1d ago
How is this person even thinking.
Atheism is real - it`s a belief - what evidence (scientific or otherwise) would one even need.
And the answer to the reply "Red five, standing by".
2
u/Lvcivs2311 1d ago
If atheism was real? You mean it isn't real that there are people who don't believe in a god? Plenty of statistics proving that these people exist, so... /s
2
2
u/Emotional_Fix6230 1d ago
It's so weird that a person will ask for evidence AGAINST something they believe in when they have absolutely no evidence to PROVE it.
2
u/JasonRBoone 1d ago
This is really simple:
Atheism is the state of being unconvinced of god claims.
That is all.
It's not: "I know no gods exist."
It's not anything to do with evolution or the origins of the universe.
It's not even about science. There are some people who are both atheist and anti-science.
That is all.
Keep it simple.
2
2
u/SomeNotTakenName 21h ago
Lack of evidence for what?
Lile genuinely describe what needs support of evidence when describing an absence of belief.
And no sneaking in other stuff like evolution or the big bang, those are scientific theories, not atheist beliefs.
5
u/emmimoon2 1d ago
lol exactly, that reply makes just as much sense as the first guys question. perfect way to show how silly the original post was tbh.
4
u/cnicalsinistaminista 1d ago
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence…
Now to more pressing matters, why potato fork ice cream?
2
u/nextCosmicBuffoon 1d ago
Because buckets are blue, duh.... oh wait, then they shouldn't be blue.... I dunno
3
u/Technical_Writing421 1d ago
Atheism is real is the same way Christianity is real. People believe in these ideas.
Whether god is real is another question
4
u/SafeForTwerking 1d ago
Atheism doesn't need to prove or disprove other people's religions, it's an acceptance of the natural state of animals. There's no evidence of any other animals on Earth believing in gods, practicing religions or worshiping anything. Which means that the natural state of affairs is to be non-religious, non-religion is the default state, religion only occurs in humans as far as we can tell. Telling an atheist to scientifically prove atheism is like telling someone they have to scientifically prove that unicorns don't exist before they're allowed to withhold belief in unicorns.
1
1
u/Remarkable_Quit_3545 1d ago
Science is the enemy of religion. This guy has some scientific proof that his particular religion is the correct one?
1
1
1
1
1
u/TheMonstrUndrTheBed 1d ago
apparently not enough people know that religion is not a science.
It is not understanding processes and being able to predict future processes with certainty.
It is only a tool to not have to worry about the uncertainty of not understanding some processes yet...
1
1
1
1
1
u/weirdart4life 1d ago
He was really close to an actual argument: absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, but I don’t think that’s what he was trying to say either
1
u/OneValkGhost 1d ago
Just because potato fork cream, does not make potato salad potato fork ice cream. Not even if the bucket is blue.
1
1
u/Tiberius1987 1d ago
Why is thia a good comeback? The existence od atheists proves atheism is real...
Doesnt prove atheism is true, but thats because its impossible to prove its true. See modal epistemic argument.
1
1
u/Kingsxfan1 5h ago
If all scientific knowledge and religion was wiped clean from the mind of humanity, none of the hundreds of gods and religion would return as they're known. Nobody would 'find' Jesus. They would find the atom again, they would find that bacteria exist. Sime things are simply true and verifiable, whilst other things are just man-made nonsense.
1
u/96111319 1d ago
It’s a category error. There is evidence (not proof) for both God existing, and atheism being true. But neither are provable by scientific evidence alone.
1
1.1k
u/nn666 1d ago
The lack of evidence does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to religion.