The primary difference between atheist arguments and religious beliefs supported by authorities is that the atheist position often relies on the idea that the claim of God's nonexistence should be accepted based on a certain rational or "scientific" argumentation, even though such evidence essentially becomes a matter of faith—a belief in the absence of a supernatural force.

The Debate Over Evidence and Faith

The primary difference between atheist arguments and religious beliefs supported by authorities is that the atheist position often relies on the idea that the claim of God's nonexistence should be accepted based on a certain rational or "scientific" argumentation, even though such evidence essentially becomes a matter of faith—a belief in the absence of a supernatural force. At the same time, religious beliefs, even when upheld by state structures, touch upon long-established traditions, cultural values, and the understanding of the meaning of existence, which are asserted without the need to appeal to the demands for proof through the scientific method.

As noted in one source, "Theoretical atheism is essentially anti-religion, because it too is based on faith. Religions are founded on the belief in the existence of God, and atheism on the belief that He does not exist.

Indeed, if God is spirit, how can one 'prove' that He does not exist using material instruments?

Such a proof is akin to someone denying the existence of the Earth's magnetic field" (source: link txt). This emphasizes that both positions ultimately depend on faith: religious beliefs assert the existence of God, while atheism asserts His absence, citing the impossibility of empirically proving the supernatural.

On the other hand, some atheist arguments, such as the claim that "Science has proven that God does not exist... This claim has no basis and is purely propagandistic. Not only does scientific proof of the nonexistence of God not exist, but it fundamentally cannot exist" (source: link txt), rely on the primacy of scientific knowledge. Many critics consider these arguments naïve and weak, since faith in God within the framework of religious tradition does not require proofs based on material measurements but is built on spiritual and cultural principles.

Another source points out that in the 19th century many atheistic arguments were based on the notion of the absolute supremacy of science, which made them extremely simplistic: "In the second half of the 19th century, a huge segment of the intelligentsia, both European and Russian, convinced themselves that science had proven that God does not exist, that belief in God was incompatible with the existence of science. It should be noted that this atheist argument is the most naïve and weak. It was based on the idea that science holds absolute supremacy not only over knowledge but also over all human life" (source: link txt). Thus, atheist argumentation often attempts to justify its position by means of scientific thinking, whereas religious beliefs are supported not only by tradition but also by deeper philosophical and cultural concepts that cannot be reduced to experimental verification.

Thus, it can be said that the arguments of atheists denying the existence of God are mainly built on an attempt to rationalize the absence of empirical evidence and on the idea of the absolute precedence of science. In contrast, the religious beliefs supported by the authorities rely on historical tradition, cultural heritage, and the conception of God as the fundamental meaning of human existence—something that nature itself cannot prove.