# Atheist Bus Driver Trys to Convert Students **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864 "2018-04-21T15:52:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/61 "2018-04-22T16:47:03Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Logic - like the logic that led to the entrenched belief in spontaneous genesis for a thousand or so years? No, the logic that, once we had the proper tools and ability to study life at a higher level, allowed us to move away from such ideas. Before we knew how old the earth was, and had some ideas of how life changed over time, spontaneous genesis made some sense. Keep in mind that the you earth creationists and bible literalists still believe in spontaneous genesis. > [@](#): > > Reason - The kind of reason that results in unbalanced humours as a disease model and rejection of germ theory? Or an elephant skull being proof of cyclops? No, the reason that, once we had the proper tools and ability to study life at a higher level, allowed us to move away from such ideas. We learned things. We were wrong at times. The difference is is that there are religious people who still reject germ theory, and instead rely on prayer for medical problems. > [@](#): > > Science - ever heard of eugenics? Thalidomyde? The opiod crisis? Yeah, science is infallible. How about the notion that sugar is harmless and it is saturated fat that is the problem? No, the science that, once we had the proper tools and ability to study life at a higher level, allowed us to move away from such ideas. Eugenics is not exactly related to science as it is related to morality. You _can_ breed humans for specific traits, just as you can breed dogs, but it is not something that we should do, especially as, at the time it was popular, we had much less understanding of how traits were inherited, and quite a bit was taken on assumption and bigotry. We learned better. As far as Thalidomide, how do you think it was discovered that it was a problem? It wasn’t clergy members doing tests and studies that discovered it’s side effects, it was science. A theological response would be to ignore the science and continue to give it to expecting mothers. I’m not sure where the opioid crisis comes in. That’s a social issue. Science didn’t create either opium, nor addiction. Science did help in the creation of drugs that are very effective at combating severe pain, but it is not responsible for the irresponsible ways that people use it. I’ve never heard anyone use science to claim that “sugar is harmless”. Everything you pointed out here is where logic, reason, and science are far superior to theology. With those tools, we can learn new things, we can fix our past mistakes, and we can progress forward. With theology, you just keep doing the same things over and over, as there is no empirical way to tell if what you are doing is working or not. [quote] Evidence - What concrete, demonstrable evidence do you have against the existence of a God? I’m not asking for philosophical evidence but hard scientific evidence? [quote] What concrete, demonstrable evidence do you have for the existence of a God? Science doesn’t prove there is no god, science just explains the universe without ever needing to invoke one. It is on the theologists to prove the need for one, not on science to prove a negative. > [@](#): > > What atheists don’t get is that they are just as fucked in the head as theists. Neither side can actually KNOW they are right they can only believe. And belief is nothing but faith. Each has their own irrefutable - to them - proof of their side’s righteousness but in the end both sides are shooting blanks. And you are assuming here that anyone who doesn’t have a religious conviction is fucked in the head and believes that the KNOW that they are right. This is a seriously flawed conclusion. We don’t know that we are right, just as you don’t KNOW that there is no teapot in orbit around Jupiter. But, just as you can make a very reasonable assumption that there is no teapot in Jupiter’s orbit, we can make a reasonable assumption that there is no divine being influencing the universe. > [@](#): > > Proselytizing atheists are even more irritating than proselytizing God-botherers because of their unfounded fucking smugness. I’ve never really met a proselytizing atheist. I have seen many atheist explain the reasons why they don’t believe in a god. And I have seen religious people incorrectly take that as proselytizing. It may seem to you to be smug when someone points to evidence that the universe was not created within the last ten thousand years, but that’s not smugness, that’s just being right. > [@](#): > > Remember freedom of religion means freedom from religion - even if your religion is atheism. That’s not what it means at all. It means freedom to follow whatever religion you wanted, and to not be bound by religious based laws that have no secular foundation. If we were simply free from religion, then that would mean that it would have no impact in my life. It would mean that people couldn’t come to my door to try to tell me I am going to hell if I don’t go to their church. It would mean that religions could not advertise in public. What I have found to be the most “militant” atheist are the newly “converted”. These are people who were raised religious, and have recently come to the conclusion that it was all a lie. They are angry about having been lied to, and not only want others to see the world the way they do, they also do so in less than productive manners, as they are really at this point, just reacting to losing the belief system that was imposed upon them from childhood. After a while they realize that most religious people aren’t really all that harmful, and that they just keep these little beliefs in order to make themselves feel better about the inevitability of death. The vast majority of atheists that I know just go about their day. The only reason that they would ever have to give their bleifs is when a theologist demands it of them. I’m not in any sort of hurry to die, but I have come to terms with the idea that at some point, I will stop existing, and that’s fine, but when I first started doubting, that knowledge is what terrified me, and made me search harder and harder for evidence, any sort of proof, that there was a god and an afterlife. I understand that most people don’t want to go through all of that, and even if they don’t really believe in god and heaven, keeping that little white lie in the back of their head allows them to get through the day and to sleep at night. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/62 "2018-04-22T17:41:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’m not sure there is an atheist equivalent. Hey! Stop praying! I don’t allow that on my bus! ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/63 "2018-04-22T17:45:27Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > Hey! Stop praying! I don’t allow that on my bus! That’s a _guard_ rail, not a _guide_ rail! ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/64 "2018-04-22T17:50:12Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > And yet you insist upon doing so. Btw super cool and edgy handle chum. They should use that for a truly shitty superhero sometime. Whereas you’ve proven yourself to be absolutely fucking useless. Wanker. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/65 "2018-04-22T18:31:15Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I bet he thinks every lottery ticket has a 50% chance of being a winning ticket because it’s either a winning ticket or it isn’t. This is logic. No, see that would Aristotelian type logic. I simply posit that just as science was unable to dummy out germs as vectors of infection a couple of hundred years ago perhaps it is unable to dummy out the existence - or non-existence - of a god. When I was a kid I firmly believed in the Loch Ness Monster. As I got older I saw the evidence for the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Clear, concrete proof that there was no such thing. I no longer believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Science showed the non-existence. Proof of a negative (which you all keep saying is impossible and yet…) If you had asked a scientist in the 20’s if the digital world of today would be possible in less than a century he’d have laughed you out of the lab. And yet… The history of science is the history of insisting that this is how it is, then discovering that it was wrong and then redefining and building. It is also the history of being presented with correct ideas and screaming from the rooftops that it is imbecility… until, lo and behold, that idea turns out to be right. I merely suggest that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence is currently beyond our capacity and as such it is arrogant to take a firm position one way or the other. I’ve been accused of lacking originality by the Mercury Avenger but what is original in either the theist or atheist argument? It is shit that has been trodden over since the Pharaoh questioned Thoth about the wisdom of writing. It is, by definition, ephemeral and as such cannot be, at present, determined. It is the “great perhaps.” Would you like a list of greater minds than yours that fervently believed in a god? I can furnish it. What precisely is so controversial about the idea that god may or may not exist and we simply do not and, at present, can not know? ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/66 "2018-04-22T18:35:04Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Yeah, science is infallible. It is. It’s the scientist interpreting the results who are making the mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/67 "2018-04-22T18:40:59Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > What precisely is so controversial about the idea that god may or may not exist and we simply do not and, at present, can not know? Nothing at all. My personal opinion is that there isn’t a deity of any kind. I also don’t think that it’s knowable one way or another. I further think that we will never know but I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/68 "2018-04-22T18:50:22Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Bollocks back ya fuck. Provide proof of the non-existence of God. Hard, scientific proof. > > You can’t can you you fucking twat. Ya can’t because it can’t be done - no different than asking for proof of the existence of a god. Atheists have faith that there is no god. Theists have faith that there is. The difference is that theists have the integrity to call it faith. Provide hard scientific evidence of the non-existence of Santa Claus. Is it faith to believe that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? After all, many millions of people believe in him. (Of course, most of them are under five years old, but that’s beside the point.) Of course, there is no way to know whether Santa Claus does or does not exist. Either possibility is equally plausible. It’s up to those who don’t believe in Santa Claus to provide hard evidence that he doesn’t exist, not to believers to provide positive evidence. The fact is, that the idea of a god or gods is so ingrained in human culture that it’s possible for idiots like you to make this ridiculous argument without even seeing how absurd it is. If the concept of god didn’t already exist, there would be zero reason to propose one from first principles. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/69 "2018-04-22T18:53:03Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > No, see that would Aristotelian type logic. > > I simply posit that just as science was unable to dummy out germs as vectors of infection a couple of hundred years ago perhaps it is unable to dummy out the existence - or non-existence - of a god. So, A guess. > [@](#): > > When I was a kid I firmly believed in the Loch Ness Monster. As I got older I saw the evidence for the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Clear, concrete proof that there was no such thing. I no longer believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Science showed the non-existence. Proof of a negative (which you all keep saying is impossible and yet…) Oh, what proof was that? There is evidence that makes it unlikely, and plenty of reason to think that it doesn’t exist, but there is no proof that it didn’t. > [@](#): > > If you had asked a scientist in the 20’s if the digital world of today would be possible in less than a century he’d have laughed you out of the lab. And yet… Please cite this claim. > [@](#): > > The history of science is the history of insisting that this is how it is, then discovering that it was wrong and then redefining and building. It is also the history of being presented with correct ideas and screaming from the rooftops that it is imbecility… until, lo and behold, that idea turns out to be right. That’s not the history of science at all. The history of science is to be _always_ seeking a better explanation. To see the gaps in our knowledge and to try to fill them. Your complete and utter lack of understanding of science and of history does little to lend your argument any credibility. > [@](#): > > I merely suggest that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence is currently beyond our capacity and as such it is arrogant to take a firm position one way or the other. Well, you have more faith in science than most atheists. I would not say that science will ever be able to prove one way or the other. You think that that knowledge is right around the corner. > [@](#): > > I’ve been accused of lacking originality by the Mercury Avenger but what is original in either the theist or atheist argument? It is shit that has been trodden over since the Pharaoh questioned Thoth about the wisdom of writing. Everything about theology is shit that has been trodden over since we could speak. Science is different. While there is no new information to be had to improve the results of your religion, science has continually explored and learned. The Pharaoh was not aware of the extent of the world, much less that of the solar system or the universe. That is stuff that science has uncovered, not theology. > [@](#): > > It is, by definition, ephemeral and as such cannot be, at present, determined. It is the “great perhaps.” > > Would you like a list of greater minds than yours that fervently believed in a god? I can furnish it. > > What precisely is so controversial about the idea that god may or may not exist and we simply do not and, at present, can not know? There is nothing at all controversial about whether or not a god exists. If you want to believe in a god, go for it, doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It is when you start saying that you know not only that god exists, but what god is, that god speaks to you, and that god is telling you to tell other people how to live their lives that stirs the controversy. When someone claims that “God hates fags”, for instance, they are not just making an ephemeral claim, they are making a statement that this must be, this is decreed by a power on high. That is when they really need to be able to come up with evidence that their stories aren’t just make-believe. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/70 "2018-04-22T18:56:48Z")
> [@SaneBill](#): > > It is. > It’s the scientist interpreting the results who are making the mistakes. And any theology is infallible it is only the priests interpreting it who make the mistakes. How do you guys not see this as nothing but apotheosis. Blind faith? Seriously, how is it that you super smart uber hip people can’t see that you make the same arguments as theists with exactly the same amount of evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/71 "2018-04-22T19:00:40Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Nothing at all. My personal opinion is that there isn’t a deity of any kind. I also don’t think that it’s knowable one way or another. I further think that we will never know but I could be wrong. That seems to me a fully reasonable position. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/72 "2018-04-22T19:04:20Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > When I was a kid I firmly believed in the Loch Ness Monster. As I got older I saw the evidence for the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Clear, concrete proof that there was no such thing. I no longer believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Science showed the non-existence. Proof of a negative (which you all keep saying is impossible and yet…) I have seen no such “proof.” Convincing discussion of the unlikelihood, yes, but never proof. No proving a negative, right? So the closest a scientist who is not trying to shut up a kid in the audience who has grown annoying will get is that Nessy, as described, probably isn’t real. ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/73 "2018-04-22T19:13:17Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Logic - like the logic that led to the entrenched belief in spontaneous genesis for a thousand or so years? > > Reason - The kind of reason that results in unbalanced humours as a disease model and rejection of germ theory? Or an elephant skull being proof of cyclops? > > Science - ever heard of eugenics? Thalidomyde? The opiod crisis? Yeah, science is infallible. How about the notion that sugar is harmless and it is saturated fat that is the problem? > > Evidence - What concrete, demonstrable evidence do you have against the existence of a God? I’m not asking for philosophical evidence but hard scientific evidence? > > What atheists don’t get is that they are just as fucked in the head as theists. Neither side can actually KNOW they are right they can only believe. And belief is nothing but faith. Each has their own irrefutable - to them - proof of their side’s righteousness but in the end both sides are shooting blanks. > > Proselytizing atheists are even more irritating than proselytizing God-botherers because of their unfounded fucking smugness. > > Remember freedom of religion means freedom from religion - even if your religion is atheism. Are you angry? You seem angry, and sometimes when you get angry you start to say a bunch of really stupid shit. ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/74 "2018-04-22T19:13:33Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > And any theology is infallible it is only the priests interpreting it who make the mistakes. Really ? Scientists are basing their evidence to the laws of the nature. Priests are basing their evidence to scriptures made by people. Both as credible sources you say ? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/75 "2018-04-22T19:19:02Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > I have seen no such “proof.” Convincing discussion of the unlikelihood, yes, but never proof. No proving a negative, right? So the closest a scientist who is not trying to shut up a kid in the audience who has grown annoying will get is that Nessy, as described, probably isn’t real. Right. No matter how thoroughly one searches Loch Ness without finding the monster, it could just mean that it is invisible most of the time and just materializes when it wants to. It could be incorporeal, and not detectable to any kind of scientific equipment. Even if you drained the Loch and found nothing there, it wouldn’t _prove_ anything! It’s simply impossible to provide hard scientific evidence that it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/76 "2018-04-22T19:23:07Z")
> [@Ace309](#): > > Are you angry? You seem angry, and sometimes when you get angry you start to say a bunch of really stupid shit. Nah. He says stupid shit pretty much all the time. It’s his thing. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/77 "2018-04-22T19:24:23Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > And any theology is infallible it is only the priests interpreting it who make the mistakes. > > How do you guys not see this as nothing but apotheosis. Blind faith? > > Seriously, how is it that you super smart uber hip people can’t see that you make the same arguments as theists with exactly the same amount of evidence? Give me an example of something that can be predicted based on theology. they are not the same. Science looks at reality, and tries to describe it. It does so by making predictions about what the results of experimenting with reality will be, and constantly learns from there. In theology, they just make shit up. There is no way to test it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/78 "2018-04-22T19:34:55Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > No, see that would Aristotelian type logic. > > I simply posit that just as science was unable to dummy out germs as vectors of infection a couple of hundred years ago perhaps it is unable to dummy out the existence - or non-existence - of a god. > > When I was a kid I firmly believed in the Loch Ness Monster. As I got older I saw the evidence for the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Clear, concrete proof that there was no such thing. I no longer believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Science showed the non-existence. Proof of a negative (which you all keep saying is impossible and yet…) > > If you had asked a scientist in the 20’s if the digital world of today would be possible in less than a century he’d have laughed you out of the lab. And yet… > > The history of science is the history of insisting that this is how it is, then discovering that it was wrong and then redefining and building. It is also the history of being presented with correct ideas and screaming from the rooftops that it is imbecility… until, lo and behold, that idea turns out to be right. > > I merely suggest that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence is currently beyond our capacity and as such it is arrogant to take a firm position one way or the other. > > I’ve been accused of lacking originality by the Mercury Avenger but what is original in either the theist or atheist argument? It is shit that has been trodden over since the Pharaoh questioned Thoth about the wisdom of writing. > > It is, by definition, ephemeral and as such cannot be, at present, determined. It is the “great perhaps.” > > Would you like a list of greater minds than yours that fervently believed in a god? I can furnish it. > > What precisely is so controversial about the idea that god may or may not exist and we simply do not and, at present, can not know? We could say the same about leprechauns, or Vishnu, or Zeus, or a million other hypothetical supernatural beings. Are you agnostic about all of them? To me, atheism doesn’t imply certainty. It just means that, to me, God falls into that same basket as leprechauns, Apollo, Thor, Shiva, Anansi, gnomes, and all those other supernatural creatures and beings that many folks used to or still believe in. I’m not 100% certain all those things are fictional, but I think it’s reasonable to go about life as if they are. I see no more reason to believe in the God of Abraham than in any of those things. I presume you feel the same way about all those other deities and creatures… why is God different, if he is, in your mind? ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/79 "2018-04-22T19:53:20Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Provide hard scientific evidence of the non-existence of Santa Claus. Is it faith to believe that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? After all, many millions of people believe in him. (Of course, most of them are under five years old, but that’s beside the point.) > > Of course, there is no way to know whether Santa Claus does or does not exist. Either possibility is equally plausible. It’s up to those who don’t believe in Santa Claus to provide hard evidence that he doesn’t exist, not to believers to provide positive evidence. > > The fact is, that the idea of a god or gods is so ingrained in human culture that it’s possible for idiots like you to make this ridiculous argument without even seeing how absurd it is. If the concept of god didn’t already exist, there would be zero reason to propose one from first principles. Here is as conclusive proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus as is possible. We have mapped the entirety of the north pole, we have all kinds of things capable of tracking mobile flying objects. There is no positive proof but there is negative proof. Further, I know that my kids get presents from Santa, I also know that bought them. I got presents from Santa and I know that my folks bought them. I also know that the presents from Santa came from my parents. My experience has been replicated through individual reports multitudinous times. Ask any parent where the Santa presents came from and you will find that they say, unless the kids are within earshot, they themselves. Now that is just the clear and provable NEGATIVE evidence. If you’d like me to get into the mythological and magical aspects I can do that just as easily. The fuck is your problem man? I consider you to be one of the better informed and rational mods and then you come at me with this grade school stupidity. I know you are a scientist - though you don’t speak for science itself - but if this is commensurate with the standard of thinking expected from scientists then perhaps faith in science is a well placed as faith Jehovah. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/80 "2018-04-22T20:03:03Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Here is as conclusive proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus as is possible. We have mapped the entirety of the north pole, we have all kinds of things capable of tracking mobile flying objects. There is no positive proof but there is negative proof… No. Santa’s workshop is not visible from the air. It’s a security thing. And, The sky is full of UFOs. There are UFOs appearing all the time on radar. Couldn’t that be Santa? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864.md?page=5)