Someone who believes something without evidence or someone who doesn’t believe something with mountains of evidence? Which is worse?

No one ever denies that. But no one who is sane distrusts every single thing a human makes or says because of that. No society could ever be built, develop, function with that disability.

@hippyjoe1955 which is why we have science... once again you make Cease's point for her

@newjaninev2 No we have science based on the faith/belief that it will be a true guide in life. It is not a true guide but some people's faith in it is unshakable. Especially those like you who do not understand it and cling to the idea that some 19th century 'thinker' completely explained how we came to be here and completely ignore all the understanding that has accrued since. As I said faith comes before evidence.

@newjaninev2 ok. Just a conversation. Back to work for me

The question can be applied to many things.

[quote]Why doesn't science give credence to one's faith?[/quote]
If by faith you mean someones religion, there’s no reason to believe it’s true in the first place, though the aspects of people’s religion that have been tested faith to show existence or explanatory power. If the aspect is unfalsifiable then it can be freely dismissed. Or if by faith you mean someone’s belief in absence of evidence, then, there’s no eveidence: freely dismissed.

[quote]It hasn't been proven that there isn't a God... has science said "we can prove God doesn't exist"?[/quote]
The inability to be disproven isn’t a validation for possibility or plausibly. It is up to the one making the claim to demonstrate the validity. But if you wanna go down that route, say science left your god open to be appealed to only because “you can’t disprove it”. Any and all other unfalsifiable “explanations” that are conceived without evidence have to be appealed to as well; it could be along with aliens, fairies, demons, ghosts, another one-and-only-and-ultimate god which comes in conflict with the other one-and-only-and-ultimate gods. Now if there was an unknown phenomenon and many people calling for those “explanations” as the cause, how could one tell which one is the ‘cause when they all have no evidence? They’re all assertions on the level of “can’t be disproved” making them equally plausible yet are contradictory.

[quote]Why tell people he doesn't exist?[/quote]
It depends. There is no reason to believe any gods do exist. Though saying he doesn’t exists would be something you have to demonstrate. But when one starts listing certain aspects of their god that contradict each other you can show that they can’t logically exist as they are being claimed to, e.g. being perfectly just, and all merciful at the same time; being all loving and with unlimited power yet live in a world full of atrocities.

[quote]There is no evidence he isn't behind all the science.[/quote]
There’s no reason to believe that he is but, sure; the existence of a god could be tested through science if that god presented itself or leaves some presence of being in the natural world. But many gods proposed by people just happen to be (conveniently or unfortunately, depending on who you talk to), outside or beyond the natural, material world, or deliberately undetectable/“divinely hidden”. So if a day comes when there is something there to access, then there’s nothing stopping it from being evaluated. But scientists can’t appeal to it as an explanation for anything before one even know there’s something there to appeal to in the first place.

[quote]If Christians are wrong, they look like fools. If the scoffers are wrong, then they spend eternity in the lake of fire...[/quote]
According some denominations, Christians, (self proclaimed Christians according to that denomination) can go to hell too if they aren’t part of the correct denomination. Plus, if you’re Christian, you can be just as wrong as “scoffers” about the other religions of the world. You and I can be reincarnated into a worse life, become ghosts, go to Jahannma, on the shore of the Styx, etc etc. And if there is no god or gods, believers don’t get away scot-free; they ended placing rules and limits on the one and only life you know of for nothing.

[quote]Why can't we believe in both?[/quote]
Depends on what you believe. Certain things religions require one to believe are not compatible with the findings of science.

[quote]Science doesn't guide our moral code, does it?[/quote]
It can help inform some of our decisions and actions that may have a moral component to it, e.g. like it’s probably humane to use anesthesia while doing surgery on a baby ‘cause studies show, they feel pain too. A moral system can be constructed upon any opinion, arbitrary thing, or subjective foundation. Even a moral system based around a text or a god’s nature, the basis is still subjective.

@Cease thank you for that well-thought-out reply. Nice to see that we can have some respectable conversations here.

@SStarfish There you get into cherry picking, confirmation bias, and half truths.