Why is it difficult for atheists to comprehend the difference between evidence and proof?

Question

They also have a hard time knowing the difference between stating a subjective opinion as fact opposed to what stating a subjective opinion as a subjective opinion. ALSO, they are horrible at using analogies. Could all of these reasons or incapabilities give reason to the fact that they haven't figured it out yet?

I answered a question earlier that stated: "Are atheists generally more open-minded?" Most of the answers to the question were "yes."

But, in order for atheists to be truly open-minded, they would have to -believe- the -possibility- of God. They have to
-believe- they do not know -everything-. This is where the atheistic worldview falls short.

cosmo: My cousin's dog's name is Zeus, so yes.

toffee: Kind of hard to do through a computer.

006: The evidence stares you in the face everyday you look outside. The universe if full of order. What more evidence must one need?

Evan: If I had a nickel for every atheist who has said: "There is no God." I'd be rich.

Something tells me Paul rolled up his bologna sandwich for lunch today and smoked it.

Andrew: That is why we -believe- in God, instead of denying the possibility that he doesn't exist, like Paul.

jathgnos: And your argument other than insults would be....

Cap't Zeemboo, you didn't have me at hello. But thanks for that wonderful example of a bad analogy.

all_are_questioned: Thank you for sticking behind me and proving to everyone that there really are people who believe evidence equals proof.

AnaRdri: Why is it we answer a question with a question when we don't know how to respond?

just curious: So by making claims that are as widely known as say 2+2=4, you're saying I must give arguments, sources, more elaboration on a claim as simple as this? Why do I need to elaborate further on the fact that when an atheist says, "There is no God" time and time again, I can't claim the fact that they dismiss the possibility of God?

ooz: So you believe you have -proof- that you in your current mindset, know for sure all there is to know about the current evidence of the God and the Bible. Do you have proof that there is absolutely nothing beyond what you might have surfaced when investigating the Bible's claims?

Sexy Thor, I agree, we must be open-minded to all things. But, I'm seeing more poor analogies. God's Word and the historicity of His Word are not even comparable in a sense, to the claims of Odim. Odim has had millions of followers over a period of around 2000 years? Does Odim have a his own claims? Are those claims as widespread and as popular? You may argue that "just because so many people believe, doesn't justify you believing." True, but you can't ignore the importance of this fact. It holds weight because a lie can be easily ignored, but won't truth always hold up?

Anyways I feel like I'm going around in a helpless circle, but I'll pray for all of you. I wanted to respond to most everyone but I have to go.

Answer 1

Short answer: The problem with your argument is that you're wrong in every way you could possibly be wrong.

Longer answer:

Er, it's difficult for anyone to comprehend that difference, but the atheists obviously understand it FAR better than do the believers. The rest of your claims were also obviously false. The atheists here - and in the world in general - are better than the believers at using analogies and at understanding analogies. They are far more likely than believers to know and respect the difference between subjective opinion and fact, and in general simply reason better than believers, and on the basis of better assumptions than those of believers. We're also obviously more open-minded.

You also seemed to assume that atheists don't believe that there is a possibility that there be a god. Some don't, of course, but many - myself included - do. I don't know ANY atheists who believe that they know everything, and of course in that sense, atheists are also far more realistic and humble than are believers.

What in the world would make you think that posting such a collection of utter nonsense would do you any good of any sort? You're either kidding, seriously deluded, or simply lying.
================
"Something tells me Paul rolled up his bologna sandwich for lunch today and smoked it."

I see.

You're a fat little unpopular adolescent boy who thinks that insulting his superiors on the internet makes him important.

Answer 2

But atheists are open-minded. They do generally accept that they don't know for a fact that there's no God. It's not actively believing that there is a God that makes them atheists. And I don't see what the difference is between evidence and proof.

Answer 3

"...in order for atheists to be truly open-minded, they would have to -believe- the -possibility- of God."

This is a strawman argument. Atheists do not have to exclude the possibility of God. They just look at the evidence, and finding none, do not believe in an unnecessary entity. You accuse them of using false analogies, without evidence. Why are all attacks on atheism riddled with hypocrisy and deceit?

Answer 4

Well, then, in order for theists to be open minded, wouldn't they have to accept the possibility that either god does not exist, or that several gods exist, or that there is one god, just not the one they worship? Since atheists are on equal footing with theists regarding accepting other possibilities, you'd have to look at how open minded they are to other things. I'd say there, atheists do tend to be more open minded than theists.

And we know (Or most of us do) the difference between evidence and proof. We also know that there is no evidence that god exists, which means that you cannot prove that god exists.

Answer 5

Being open-minded has nothing to do with believing in invisible deities.

Perhaps you should be more open-minded, and believe in gods other than your own. Or maybe believe in unicorns and fairies.

Now do you see why your question is so silly?

Besides, I don't believe I know everything. Science says "I don't know" a lot. Knowing everything is the realm of religion. You know ... you can't figure out how something happened, so you say "God did it." Which, of course, is no answer at all.

Subjective opinions as fact? Again, that's religion's domain. You know, like saying "there's evidence of God all around." You're really projecting today.

There is no evidence for a personal god. There's also no proof of one, since you like splitting hairs.

Answer 6

I see... so what about Zeus, Odin, and Osiris hmm? They have as equal a chance of existing as your god does.

Dismissing that there is an almost infinately larger chance that there is no god, if a god exists, then why do you arrogantly assume you are worshipping the god the way the god wants to be worshipped? Why do you arrogantly assume said god is a male?

The bible was written by mankind, just as every other document.

Your straw man arguments are making you look foolish.

Edit: jack... people like you make me want to strangle them. "Look outside your window" and "Look in a mirror" is NOT proof. And, by your idiotic definition, its also NOT evidence. Use your brain, not your bible. Seriously.

Answer 7

LOLz a Strawman argument eh?
I would assume then that you being an open-minded person that you believe in the possibility of Odin? or any other Pagan God?

As an Atheist I am, I wait for the evidence. You know what they say: "Fools Rush In".

Answer 8

Evidence is proof. And most religious people are terrible at using analogies as well.

What you have not figured out is that god is a myth just like Zeus.

And by the way most Atheists were religious at one time; therefore they have a good idea about god and religion.

Answer 9

Err...I do believe there is a possibility, but it is exactly they same as the possibility that Zeus, Odin, and Anubis are real. I mean the evidence is exactly the same for all of them.

Really the odds of anything that hasn't a shred of evidence being real are to low to take the time to seriously consider. And that is exactly the situation here.

Answer 10

you're equivocating on the meaning of the words. you're in a position to offer a logical data of god's existence, yet once you do not have data you do not have data. If the data is contradictory and helps the different factor, you won't be able to coach your declare.