Because they are arrogant and think that Christians are better than everyone else.. And most christians are like this.. I have met some very wonderful true Christians but for the most part they all act like that.. And I can't stand people like this
because they cant do the opposite without the bible. i mean i guess its their approach really. i mean i think its stupid to try to prove or disprove god considering science does neither. in order to be a scientific fact, something must be shown. in order for it to be shown, there must be an experiment showing it. and in order for there to be an experiment, the thing in question must physically be there. which is why some of the most complex human-made elements are not considered actual elements and proven to be there. because if they cant stay long enough to take place during an experiment, they cannot be fact. but i guess they just find it an approach.
This isn't an answer, but a thank you. I appreciate the word "some" in your question. I tire of people lumping all people in a group together, whether they are Christians, atheists, musicians, whatever. Thanks!
They let their faith overcome their reasoning. They pride themselves on the blind adherence to it. It is like trying to reason with a republican. THey are right no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. I would call that blind stupidity.
All truths carry the burden of proof, either it be a positive or a negative truth. one defense that some theists and some atheists use, is that both try to argue the other's truth has no proof. Which in either case is illogical, because one can not use the lack of evidence as evidence. God bless.
The Atheist can't prove it's case for "naturalism" but begs the question to the Theist to prove Gods existence... Quite hypocritical don't you think? I sure do... The Atheist stands on his faith of "Naturalism" and is then ruled and controlled by that unproven assumption.... Yet the Atheist will use Laws that they cannot even philosophically account for being in there worldview..... And still argue from a standpoint that it's "natural".... what does this show?? it shows the Atheist isn't logically looking for proof...... The Atheist wants "no God"..... If mans will is bent to rejecting God I say let them have what they want and deserve.... No God
In a logical debate - the person making an assertion - such as "God exists and loves humanity" - has the obligation to back this assertion with evidence. What evidence is offered? The testimony of ancient men - testimonies that have been massaged, adulterated, edited, improperly translated, for thousands of years. In a courtroom such "evidence " would not even qualify as "hearsay" and would quickly be ruled "in admissible" as valid evidence. The more honest religious understand this problem of evidence deficient belief and will simply admit that they believe anyway - they congratulate their irrationality by framing their evidence deficient beliefs as "virtuous" - commendable - of which they take great sanctimonious pride (obviously not all of the faithful). The counter argument is of course, why does skepticism and a need for verifiable claims of the religious by the non-believers even exist? This now forces the question of what constitutes "free will" - which we now know is not quite as free as we have always assumed. That conundrum forced religion to invent the opposite of God - Lucifer or Satan. Man is then a pawn being pulled by great supernatural forces to submit him to religious servility to his imagined celestial dictator or devilish mind twisting games to turn the gullible human away from God. The atheist is not mired in supernatural belief - and is more stringent in advocating belief, given the current evidence. Atheists do not believe personal self-deception and intellectual dishonesty, no matter how encased in ritual, is a virtue, but instead, a pathetic lack of courage to face reality as we know it - not as we've been told by less than reliable ancient men or as we wish it to be.