I'm not pulling another superstition vs. science debate because there are more than enough of those going around; instead, I've noticed that religious people, in their failure to justify His existence with evidence, usually drop back to, "faith, or the belief in something without evidence, is just as fundamental as science, the belief in evidence, is."
Or, to rephrase, scientific evidence is not any more believable than is a supreme being.
To be frank, I'm tired of this argument. Usually, those who use this are people who aren't scientists (or artists, for that matter), and whose minds are constructed around "commonsense" and "wordplay". This, however, is understandable, since there's a positive relationship between intelligence and whether or not one is an atheist. (This fact can be Googled, and has been tested multiple times). However, I do apologize for my tendency to hit below the belt with ad hominem attacks, as this paragraph seems to do. They're sometimes not relevant to the argument, since the biggest idiot in the world could still come up with a good argument once in a while.
So, back to the argument, I think the strongest counterargument is thus:
Consciousness, the very act of thinking, requires, for a lack of a better term, a "subject matter". It so happens that the subject is everything (we think) is around us. The mere act of thinking of this subject requires an observation of this subject. And evidence, the word religious people hate the most, is the result of observation. Regardless of whether or not what one observes is "real", what we observe is more relevant to our life than what is "real". In fact, what is "real" is usually completely detached from our lives, and may as well be "not real". While that's true, what we observe, given its relevance to our life, may as well be "real", for all the difference that it makes.
And since what we observe may as well be "real", evidence may as well be real. Scientific evidence? That's just very complex evidence, but it's just as observable as regular evidence. Sometimes it's so complex that many cannot observe it, but nonetheless, it's "real" insofar as our fridge is "real". Unless you're insinuating that all scientists are lying about their observations, if we take their observations (aka., scientific evidence) to be true, scientific evidence is just as true or "real".
And what does scientific evidence say?
It says that His existence is very improbable; so improbable that we can assume that He doesn't exist.
It says that Darwin was most likely right.
It says a lot of things.
If one agrees that one's fridge is real, but denies that evidence is real, one is practicing doublethink. Fitzgerald believed that those who could practice this were intellectually gifted. However, the very act essentially requires self-deception.
I'm not going to argue about how the ability to deceive oneself is not a sign of intellectual strength.
Forgive me for my post's length. Brevity hasn't been one of my strong suits, especially given that English wasn't my first language. If you do take the time to read the article, I can thank you for that. Even if you disagree, I hope that I have at least enlightened you to one other way of thinking.
How do you eat an elephant as big as religion? One small bite at a time.
I also ask that you give me some allowance in terms of stylistic immaturity. Since I'm 16 years old without much practice, I don't think I'm going to be very mature.