“I’m not happy about this!”
Congressman Says He Doesn’t Believe In God: Highest-Ranking Elected Official To Do So
Cue the jokes about godless politicians and Bay Area liberals.
Secular groups Monday applauded a public acknowledgment by Rep. Pete Stark that he does not believe in a supreme being, making the Fremont Democrat the first member of Congress — and the highest-ranking elected official in the U.S. — to publicly acknowledge not believing in God.
And here’s a longer article about him.
The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post on Tuesday, congratulating Stark’s stance.
“With Stark’s courageous public announcement of his nontheism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long,” the group’s executive director, Roy Speckhardt, said in a statement.
Stark’s beliefs garnered attention after the Secular Coalition for America offered a $1,000 prize to the person who could identify the “highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.”
A man with the balls to admit his beliefs
By the way, Uncle Dave, I think you totally have the wrong picture.
I think God is probably secure enough not to be too P.O.’d about this.
The picture should be by of some blowhard like Bill O’Reilly who THINKS they are God.
#29, 31 – Lauren the Ghoti,
You are correct, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
However, when there is literally not a single shred of evidence to support an idea, most of us pay no attention to it, unless the idea is god. You can’t prove the non-existence of the great pumpkin either. Why give one hypothesis with zero evidence priority over any other?
Or, are you also undecided about the existence of all of the other creatures I listed in my prior post? That would be self-consistent. Silly. But self-consistent. To be agnostic about god based on nothing but not be agnostic about the great pumpkin based on nothing, is not self-consistent.
For me, I will give all hypotheses with zero evidence equal credibility, i.e. none.
In post 31, you make the incorrect statement again. Atheists assert that there is no reason to give any credence to the god hypothesis. As an agnostic, please do not put words into the mouths of atheists. We are perfectly capable of stating our own views. It is true that the statement “there is no reason to give any credence to the god hypothesis” can be shortened to “there is no god”. But, the reason behind the statement must be considered.
You don’t get to put your reason behind my logic and lack of belief. I, for one, would gladly admit the possibility of god and become an agnostic in light of a single shred of credible evidence. As there are none, I have no reason for doubt.
So, please, stop telling me what I believe. Thanks.
#34, I don’t see where he is telling you what you believe; he is simply debating your definition of the word “atheism.” Apparently, even among “atheists,” there is disagreement.
from your post #27:
… Your second example is correct.
Atheist: ‘It is correct to conclude that “God does not exist”.’
This is based on the available evidence, i.e. none.
Your first example, however, is somewhat incorrect. Instead of:
‘asserts belief in nonexistence of supernatural deity(-ies) ’
A better wording would be:
‘asserts that no evidence has been presented for the existence of supernatural deity.’
“God does not exist” is a positive statement with a clear assertion which is different from simply saying “we have no evidence to support the existence of god.” So which is it? Clearly, the positive statement is an atheistic one; Lauren (as would I) says that the second position is an agnostic one, whereas you are claiming it to also be atheistic.
>>However, when there is literally not a single shred of evidence to support an idea, most of us pay no attention to it, unless the idea is god.
The vast majority of humans now and throughout all of history will witness to the existence of god/God or gods. Isn’t that a form of evidence?
Or do you only accept a few narrowly defined forms of evidence… like what can be replicated in a lab? By that standard, most of the human experience never happens and is not real.
What your hitting up against is not the delusion of religion but the narrow scope of what science can address.
#35 – Mike,
God does not exist.
It is however, a conclusion based on available evidence rather than an assertion. I know many atheists. I go the extra mile and am an antitheist. But, I don’t know anyone that would state that if credible evidence came along they would continue to maintain the same conclusion. That would be faith and would be inconsistent with the beliefs of any atheist I know.
#36 – Greg Allen,
Scientific evidence has a level of standard that goes far beyond “everyone knows …” The majority of humans find quantum mechanics far outside any normal experience that we have had. It violates all logic. Yet, scientific evidence has shown that it is true. Perhaps a prettier theory will come along that will make more sense, but it had better explain the observable phenomena.
When thinking of the vast majority, just remember, by that logic, a billion flies can’t all be wrong. Shit must be delicious.
As for the narrow scope of what science can address, that increases year after year. If we took the god hypothesis as true, we’d stop all scientific investigation.
Loren, I think some of these narrow, nitpicking definitions for atheism were written by subversive theists who conspired to sow disharmony and divide the infidels they wished to conquer (I’m only slightly kidding). As a matter of simple logic and practicality, it seems there really isn’t a lot of room for the strict belief that no god exists anywhere, and I doubt many people would fit into that tight little box. I think that definition was written to paint atheism as a belief system in itself.
I prefer to think of atheism as the absence of any belief in a deity, and if that treads into the territory owned by agnostics, they’ll have to issue a ‘cease and desist’ order to get me to stop defining it that way. Let the lawyers hash it out — hey, what could go wrong there? 😉
#37
Please tell me about your evidence to support that “God does not exist” is anything but an untestable assertion. Again, you are incorrectly trying to say that lack of evidence supports an absolute when you have no evidence to the contrary. Which is the point Lauren was making. And more problematic – how can you negate something which isn’t clearly defined in the first place. “God” always has and always will mean different things to different people. Is it a being who actively controls all of the workings of the universe, of did it just set forth the rules under which things progress on their own… or is the universe just a big version of the Sims Online with each planet being controlled by its own “God?” That the evidence for evolution, or any other observable natural process, can disprove a particular faith’s account of God, does nothing to support the absolute statement that no God exists.
My belief in God is merely one of First Cause, but I’m sure if a big crab appeared above me through the clouds and told me to kneel before him as my God, I’m sure I’d probably change my opinion on the matter as well.
#36 – The vast majority of humans now and throughout all of history will witness to the existence of god/God or gods. Isn’t that a form of evidence?
No they will not. Rather, they will attribute to God things they cannot otherwise comprehend. Let’s not assume that because Daddy survived the heart attack that there must be a god.
No evidence means no evidence… in the lab or otherwise. Wanting it be true is not the same as evidence.
#36 – Greg Allen
“The vast majority of humans now and throughout all of history will witness to the existence of god/God or gods.”
That’s not true. No “vast majority”. People throughout history – the masses, which is to say, people not of high intelligence or awareness – have claimed to believe in a virutal infinity of different things that did not exist. Children believe in boogymen; adults do not. And among human populations, the children are the average ones who believe in a nonexistent deity. The more intelligent, more mature and wise ones, who by definition are always outnumbered by those of average gifts, do not believe in the things the masses do. Knowledge and wisdom are not democratic. Facts are not arrived at by consensus. The number of people who believe in a particular proposition has no impact on the truth of that proposition.
And you use this unuseful word, “witness.” Let’s stick to precise, clear words and phrases that don’t carry religious baggage and have simple, mutually-agreed-upon definitions.
“Isn’t that a form of evidence?”
No. It is not. That is not evidence of anything other than the fact that some people claim that they believe something or other.
“Or do you only accept a few narrowly defined forms of evidence… like what can be replicated in a lab?”
What you have to understand, and religionists never seem to be able to grasp, is this: that is the ONLY form of evidence that is acceptable to the search for objective truth, which is known better as ‘science.’
ONLY what can be shown to be actual, agreed-upon to exist by all parties, is REPEATABLE and FALSIFIABLE is good enough. The reason that such evidence is the only type that can be accepted is because IT IS THE ONLY SORT OF EVIDENCE THAT ACTUALLY PROVES ANYTHING. EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Any other sort of so-called ‘evidence’ -ESPECIALLY fallible, emotional humans’ claims of personal experience – contains the possibility of error – always. No exceptions.
Following this method of determining what is true and what isn’t is exactly how we managed to progress from living in caves to walking on the Moon.
Following religion’s standards of proof and belief is exactly how we managed to go from killing each other in the name of our chosen deity to killing each other in the name of our chosen deity.
As I pointed out early on – the scientific method resulted in the existence of the World Trade Center. Your method resulted in it’s total destruction.
By that standard, most of the human experience never happens and is not real.”
“…the narrow scope of what science can address.”
Wrong. Science addresses everything. Everything that actually exists in realitythat is. That’s why it works.
#31 – But the agnostic, not the atheist, is the one who makes no assertion. And he’s the only one of the three who doesn’t do so… He only says that ‘Those other guys both wrongly assert as fact things for which no evidence has been shown.’
Anyway, I have long been called a nitpicker for rigidly adhering to strict definitions, but that’s just me.
The four definitions I found are:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities.
2. The doctrine or belief that no deities exist.
3. The absence of belief in deities.
4. Godlessness; ungodliness; immorality.
1. proposes an either or situation and in the first case, disbelief is not the same thing as denial, so it is isn’t declarative.
2. pretty much what you said
3. pretty much not at all what you said and in fact the stand that a sizable number of athiests take…
Many athiests do assert that there is no god. But that isn’t what athiest means. “a” is the Latin, without… theist is one who subscribes to theism which is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses.
Thus an atheist is quite simply one without belief. This is not the same as denial. This is a completely claimless position.
Although, I’m happy to concede that the other definitions are valid, but you cannot apply all the definitions to all atheists.
Agnostics, however, DO make a clear assertion. It’s not a claim that a god does or does not exist, but rather a claim about the evidence and probability of a god…
I’m not calling you a nitpicker or saying you are wrong about atheism, except to say that this notion of the definitions being strict is wrong.
However….
#41 – Following religion’s standards of proof and belief is exactly how we managed to go from killing each other in the name of our chosen deity to killing each other in the name of our chosen deity.
I need to express my wholehearted agreement with that statement. That is undeniably true. One might say that on that point, I am a true believer 🙂
#31
> An atheist asserts the opposite of what a theist does – but
> it’s still an assertion, regarding God. He says that ‘It is
> a fact that God doesn’t exist.’
Not true. An atheist asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support the theist claim regarding the existence of a deity. So, it would be more accurate to say, “There are no facts to support the claim that God exists. I therefore reject the claim that God exists until it can be proven otherwise.” An agnostic would say, “While I know there are no facts to support the theist claims, it could still be the case that such a thing exists and thus I do not wholly reject theist claims.” An agnostic does not reject the existence of God because of lack of evidence but rather plays the middle by neither supporting nor rejecting theist claims.
#35
The positive but yet layman assertion of an atheist claim is “God does not exist because I have no evidence to the contrary.” The more accurate assertion is “Theists have yet to prove their claim that God exists and thus I refuse to give credence to the idea. Until it is proven otherwise, I reject the idea that God exists just as I reject the idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leprechauns and the Easter Bunny exists until I’m giving evidence that would make me think otherwise.”
#39
> Please tell me about your evidence to support that “God
> does not exist” is anything but an untestable assertion.
You are starting from fallacious viewpoint. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to “prove that God does not exist.” The burden of proof is on the claimant meaning the theist to provide evidence that such a thing does exist. Further, you are absolutely correct that in order to provide such proof the term “god” must be narrowly defined.
#39 – Mike.
My evidence that god does not exist is exactly the same as my evidence that the great pumpkin does not exist. I do not give credence to hypotheses with zero supporting evidence.
It’s a sort of a “show me” attitude that is often respected as a proper skeptical attitude on many other subjects. This one alone is different. Why?
What makes the god hypothesis different than any other hypothesis? If there’s no data in support, we say that neither the great pumpkin nor god exists.
I will give god credence when someone produces supporting evidence of normal scientific quality. Until then, I say “there is no god.”
What is so difficult to understand about that?
#44, Scott
There is nothing wrong with your post or argument. Well, except for that ONE nagging little thing. You didn’t leave anyone anything to argue about.
#44, What evidence is there that dark matter exists? None. But people have been able to infer that it exists based upon what is known about the gravitational effects on the things we can observe. So what proof is there that a God exists? None. But it can also be inferred that based upon the sheer complexity of the composition and coordination of otherwise non-living matter to form a single unit of life, that it could not have occurred without some outside being or force acting as a guide or impetus. This does not mean that it cannot later be disproved, but is well reasoned nonetheless.
But I’m not trying to argue about whether God exists or not; I’m much more interested in the rhetorical debate over whether or not “God does not exist” is a more valid position than “God does exist.” Both are absolute statements which are neither testable nor have any evidence to support them. I do agree with you and Thomas, however, that saying you just don’t accept the views of another without proof or evidence is perfectly fine. And whether or not that makes you an atheist or agnostic is simply a debate over vocabulary.
Long ago, people prayed to a rain god to water their crops because they could understand a huge person throwing water. They prayed to an earth god because they could understand a being pushing plants and trees up from below the ground. Meteorology eventually explained how weather worked and replaced that deity theorem. Similarly, so did biology and genetics for its respective gods. And so on. As societies advanced, so too did their religions, combining them into, eventually, singular gods as we have today.
I consider a belief in a creator/deity as being a scientific theorem from a pre-scientific time. Man wanted to explain how he got here and without our current technology, anthropomorphizing was the way they came up with. It naturally led to a theory that an invisible being created everything.
Meteorology, biology, genetics and other areas of science are extraordinarily complex subjects even today for those who specialize in them. But, over time, they became accepted as fact as we learned, pushing out the old theorem that huge, invisible beings were responsible.
Yes, there are many things of equal and greater complexity still to be learned which many still ascribe to a deity because of their “sheer complexity” and/or because the people themselves don’t fully understand what is known and how it all interconnects. As technology and intellectual inquiry continue to push our knowledge further into all areas, eventually the last vestiges of the old theorem will naturally fall away, replaced by an understanding of the complexity.
Many people, understanding all of this, combined with an understanding of history, psychology, sociology, politics, etc and how religion as a tool of power works to keep people believing, have taken the leap to discard the old theorem now. We call ourselves atheists.
And getting back to the topic, Uncle Dave — isn’t it more than a little frightening that the American electorate is still so distrustful of our brand of rational thought that politicians nearly always have to display some sort of allegiance to an unseen deity in order to be elected.
I’m so angry I want to fling my feces in rage, but that would be stooping to their level 😉
#48, yes, the need to pander to the electorate is the principle flaw in any democratic system.
#46 – But I’m not trying to argue about whether God exists or not; I’m much more interested in the rhetorical debate over whether or not “God does not exist” is a more valid position than “God does exist.”
It’s an interesting debate… and its a bundle of fun to have these long meandering esoteric debates. These debates go especially well with a glass of wine or a mellow joint or a few beers… whatever your preference is…
But in the meantime there is an army of zombie like glass eyed fire and brimstone believe Bible thumpers trying to subvert our democracy, roll back the clock and progress, and impose their narrow minded vision of society on the free thinking and freedom loving people who make this nation great.
So in the lack of action against this formidable and slack jawed enemy, our freedom to have this discussion is being encroached upon. Eventually all theological discussion will be over kool-aid and will be hosted by Billy-Bob and Cletus, and the topic will not be “is there a God” but rather “How does Jeebus influence every last detail of our long, slow, miserable, inescapable lives.”
#46 – Mike,
Sorry, bad example on dark matter. There is an observable effect of dark matter from its gravitational pull. We can see that the rotational speeds of galaxies are different than we expect. Much research is necessary to determine what this dark matter is and whether the rotational speed differential is actually a failing of sorts with the theory of general relativity. As relativity has always held up before, the majority opinion is that there is some matter that is difficult to detect by other means.
This is not to say that dark matter definitely exists. Relativity could indeed be replaced by a better theory as a result of this. However, the HUGE DIFFERENCE between this and god is that there is a large and significant body of data indicating the existence of dark matter. It should at least get you thinking that it may or even probably does exist. No such data exists for god.
Had you picked dark energy, the answer would have been the same. There is a significant amount of evidence that the expansion of the universe is indeed accelerating. Other theories for this exist. The jury is still out. But, there is enough data to give one a significant amount to think about.
Even string theory has supporting data, though probably less. For starters, gravity neatly falls out of it. It also predicted glueballs, which are now listed among the known particles of particle physics. I’m personally hedging my bets on string theory. I like it but would like to see a lot more data. So, I’m a string theory agnostic.
The god hypothesis however, still offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to consider as scientific evidence. In fact, it asks more questions than it answers. If the existence of a huge bizarre inexplicable universe is to be answered by the existence of god, then one must ask:
1) Where did this god creature that can go around creating these huge bizarre inexplicable universes at the rate of one a week come from?
2) Why did god choose to create 10^11 suns and 10^22 planets just to create us?
3) Why did god use a better design for squid eyes than he did for us?
4) Why didn’t god give us a straight spine and better knees to avoid a lot of suffering?
5) Why didn’t god give simply separate the panda’s thumb from the hand instead of jury rigging a wrist bone to serve the same function?
6) For Christians, why did god create (or not destroy) the devil?
7) Exactly how does the pre-supposition of complexity (i.e. god) explain the existence of complexity? (This sounds like a case of logically flying up one’s own asshole to me.)
#50 – OhForTheLoveOf,
I agree on liking the debate (else I wouldn’t bother typing this) and have taken your advice remotely. Sure, in person over drinks might be nicer, but I had a couple before typing this. I hope you weren’t suggesting that we drink the kool-aid though. That has a very different connotation.
Cheers.
#44
Well, I was so busy today that I didn’t get a chance to post my response before #47, #50,# 51 really answered for me. Dark matter has far more scientific evidence to support its hypothesis of existence than any god claim.
> But it can also be inferred that based upon the sheer
> complexity of the composition and coordination of otherwise
> non-living matter to form a single unit of life, that it
> could not have occurred without some outside being or force
> acting as a guide or impetus.
No sir, it cannot. Complexity is purely a function of current knowledge and experience. To cave men of ten thousand years ago, the weather was considered to be a product of the divine. Complexity is a wholly insufficient basis for proof of the supernatural.
The phrases “God does not exist” and “I do not believe in a god(s)” are layman’s truncations of the actual position of “I reject your claim that a supernatural being exists due to lack of definition of the term and lack of scientific evidence to support the claim.”
#52 – Thomas,
You and I are in complete agreement on this. And thanks for picking up on the apologetics argument on “abiogenesis”. I must have missed that one. It’s an obvious confusion between statistics and scientific proof and ignores the fact that the numbers in the universe and in the age of the universe are far larger than the human mind can normally comprehend.
I think, however, that your post is in response to #46 (by Mike).
I wrote both #44 and #51.
Misanthropic Scott
#39, Please tell me about your evidence to support that “God does not exist” is anything but an untestable assertion. Again, you are incorrectly trying to say that lack of evidence supports an absolute when you have no evidence to the contrary.
The Bible, as well as those whose profession includes thumping said book, tells us of a great many deeds performed by “God”.
Illness and indeed death, are at the mercy of “God”,
birth is “God’s” will,
rain and crops growing are part of “God’s” doing,
the stars were created by “God”,
Jonah lived for three days in the stomach of a large fish,
etc, etc,…
Yet each of these have been disproved as coming from a supreme being and shown to have strictly terrestrial origins. Eggs are fertilized and life begins. Viruses, bacterias, fungi, and even genetic problems have been identified as the causes of diseases and are treated accordingly. Weather patterns cause the clouds to form and rain to fall and droughts to endure. The acids in any fishes stomach would kill the person in a very short time. The origin of the universe has better theories explaining it then does the origin of “God”.
No, we as a people do not have all the answers, but at least we have some without resorting to the “Don’t question he who works in mysterious ways”. As each “Bible Assertion” finds scientific proof of its fallacy, that is just one more proof that god doesn’t exist
Thomas & M. Scott, both
We all see eye to eye on this, which is a Good Thing, and the ability to see through the smokescreen of emotion and propaganda that organized religion foists off on society is a skill that is desperately needed today. Unfortunately, the IQ of the gen pop is sliding downward, making it harder every day for the forces of reason to get any traction.
That said, I have to say, I can tell you guys aren’t exactly logicians, no offense intended…
Thomas;
“The phrases “God does not exist” and “I do not believe in a god(s)” are layman’s truncations of the actual position of “I reject your claim that a supernatural being exists due to lack of definition of the term and lack of scientific evidence to support the claim.””
Nossir. Sorry, but still incorrect. “God does not exist” is a flat, declarative statement that, objectively, a certain specific factual relation is true-to-fact. It says, and this is the exact, precise logical equivalent: “It is a fact that the entity labeled “God” fails to possess the property of actual existence.” And there isn’t any evidence to support that declaration. It is an unsupported assertion, a logical argument offered without premises, and as such, must be rejected. Neither you nor I have any evidence regarding what properties, if any, this “God” possesses or doesn’t.
But “I do not believe in (a) God(s)” is not logically, semantically equivalent. it’s a declaration of the speaker’s own subjective personal evaluation of the argument offered and as such, is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable – and therefore of no value in the argument.
Your #1 is: “It is an objective fact that God doesn’t exist”; your #2 is: “It is my personal conclusion that God doesn’t exist”.
The first is the (equally unsupported) contrary declaration to “God exists”, and the second, a declaration of your conclusion.
So, the logical equivalent of your third, “I reject your assertion (that God exists) because (a) the entity thus labeled is imprecisely defined, and (b) no evidence has been shown to support the existence of any entity conforming to any definition thus far offered.” is merely an elaboration of your #2, offering the premises you base your conclusion on.
So, what I’m telling you is, your #2 and #3 are fundamentally (for the sake of this single aspect of the issue) the same, #2 is your conclusion and #3 your argument (conclusion plus premises) – but neither one equates with #1, which is not an argument, but a declaration of universal fact – which is invalid, since you cannot demonstrate it to be true.
M. Scott
“This is not to say that dark matter definitely exists.”
Well, in a way, it is… It is an observable fact that something is there, causing the observed effects. The specific nature and extent of those effects outlines the parameters (to the extent of our present knowledge, obviously) of the thing causing those effects to occur. So we tentatively label the entity thus outlined “dark matter.” It is there and it does exist – but it may be matter and it may not, whatever “it” is. Further observation and testing against the expected behavior of what fits inside this outline will continue to narrow the possibilities into certainties. But still, whatever we call “it” right now notwithstanding, it has a measurable effect on the real world, so there is no doubt that “it” exists.
“No such data exists for god.”
To say the least.
– – – – – – – –
PSST! Religionists! ZERO evidence of “God”, no matter how defined. NONE. EVER. Can you grasp that? Not ‘a little bit’ or ‘a suggestion’ or ‘something that could be’ – no. Not. One. Particle. Anywhere, at any time. ONLY the personal beliefs of ignorant, emotional and forever-prone-to-misperception human minds. EVERYTHING science investigates has SOME evidence that it actually exists… and your “God” does not.
Which is the best of all possible reasons to very confidently assume, until any evidence is produced – which is astronomically unlikely -, that “God”, like virtually everything that has no evidence, is not real.
Lauren the Ghoti,
Offense accepted!
I have already asked you once to stop putting words in my mouth. When I mean to say that “it is a fact”, I will do so.
Since you obviously do not assert that things you cannot prove do not exist do not in fact exist, obviously you allow for the possibility of the Great Pumpkin, among many others. Perhaps this little hypothetical conversation will make the point for me.
Person 1: There’s a dragon living in my apartment.
Person 2: That’s ridiculous. Dragons don’t exist.
P1: Of course they do. I just told you there’s one living in my
apartment. In fact, I’m a little afraid sometimes.
P2: Can I come by and see your dragon?
P1: Certainly you’re welcome to come over. But, the dragon is invisible.
P2: Hmmm…. Yes. Of course. Well, perhaps I could sprinkle talcum
powder on the floor and see his/her footprints.
P1: You can try, but s/he flies around the apartment so I doubt you’ll get any footprints.
P2: I see. Well, the fire from his/her breath must scorch the walls. Perhaps I can put some thermometers around to measure the temperature.
P1: You’re welcome to try but he breathes cold fire.
P2: Of course. Perhaps I can measure the air currents from the beat of the wings.
P1: Well, again, you can try. But, s/he sort of just hovers around, due to the fact that this dragon is actually massless.
Etc.
So, do you allow for the possibility of my invisible, flying, cold-fire-breathing dragon? You can’t prove s/he doesn’t exist, can you? I’ve made the rules specifically so that you can’t. I’m sure that if you come up with other tests, I can come up with more equally plausible (i.e. not at all) reasons why the tests will fail but my dragon still exists.
Or, do you allow the statement that “dragons do not exist”?
Do you really see this as being different than the god hypothesis? If so, why?
Lastly, by your last paragraph, if you get to put words in my mouth, I get to tell you, YOU ARE INDEED AN ATHEIST. And, by the vehemence of your wording toward religionists, I’d say an antitheist as well. Welcome to the club, so to speak!
So scientists never believe in anything without evidence?
What about parallel universes. There is certainly no evidence for those.
Scientists, rightly so, do not like anecdotal material, but should it be rejected out of hand?
Once upon a time in history peasants talked about rocks falling from the sky and the scientist of that time rejected said reports as fanatasies by peasants!
Atheists are as bound and limited by their own prejudices as theists are by theirs.
One of the prejudices of some atheists is the concept that a believer cannot look objectively at a problem an arrive at a proper solution.
One of the prejudices of some believers is their inability to accept that
atheists are as diverse and human as anyone else.