(April 27, 2015 at 4:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(April 27, 2015 at 4:24 pm)IAOALGIV Wrote: That's a big IF, friend. 

If God's intention is to provide us with zero evidence of his existence and then have us not believe in him, he's doing a grand job.

I agree.

(April 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm)IAOALGIV Wrote:

(April 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: He's really any atheist, he just hates the fact that there is no evidence for God.

My gripe is always with people thinking that a being powerful enough to create them would leave evidence lying around for their creation to scrutinize. 

First of all, welcome.

My gripe is with people who postulate a being powerful enough to have created this wondrous, staggeringly vast universe but who also believe that such a being would be obsessed with our goings on.

It's almost like they are projecting their petty narcissism onto a fictitious entity. 

It's like a detective examining a crime scene, taking in every fingerprint, every blood spatter, every hair fibre, every piece of physical evidence - and then declaring for no reason that the Great Pumpkin did it.

Good grief.

The pragmatic conclusion that there probably isn't a God is still very much justified even if it is wrong.

And I don't care if it is wrong, because a hiding God doesn't affect anything. If he thinks it's funny, good for him. If he's going to kick my ass later, good for him.

(April 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm)IAOALGIV Wrote: My gripe is always with people thinking that a being powerful enough to create them would leave evidence lying around for their creation to scrutinize. 

If that creator wished for their creation to believe in them, and accept a set of commandments governing their lives, as religions claim that it does, then leaving that evidence would be paramount, certainly necessary for belief in it to be rational.

If that creator had no such wishes and didn't leave any evidence due to that, then we are equally not justified in believing in it.

No evidence, no belief. That's the way this has to work.

(April 27, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm)IAOALGIV Wrote: My gripe is always with people thinking that a being powerful enough to create them would leave evidence lying around for their creation to scrutinize. 

If that creator wished for their creation to believe in them, and accept a set of commandments governing their lives, as religions claim that it does, then leaving that evidence would be paramount, certainly necessary for belief in it to be rational.

If that creator had no such wishes and didn't leave any evidence due to that, then we are equally not justified in believing in it.

No evidence, no belief. That's the way this has to work.

Aaaand your back to square one. 

Here is the thing with theists in America at least. The only interaction with those who claim they are atheists (as opposed to those who frankly don't give a shit about their own beliefs) ends up solidifying the negative stereotypes they already have....it would be like an atheist going outside and the only Christians they meet are from the WBC.

That's actually a good example, Polaris.

And I agree with what Esquilax said. How does it make sense that with no evidence whatsoever of God's existence, he would expect me to fully buy into a glorified book of fairy tales as reality? And if I didn't believe this book that has as much realistic information as the How to Train Your Dragon series, then I am going to be tormented in Hell for eternity?

Either way, I believe in none of that. But even if a god like that existed, I wouldn't want to follow him anyways.

(April 27, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Jericho Wrote: That's actually a good example, Polaris.

And I agree with what Esquilax said.  How does it make sense that with no evidence whatsoever of God's existence, he would expect me to fully buy into a glorified book of fairy tales as reality?  And if I didn't believe this book that has as much realistic information as the How to Train Your Dragon series, then I am going to be tormented in Hell for eternity?

Either way, I believe in none of that.  But even if a god like that existed, I wouldn't want to follow him anyways.

Depends on what you consider evidence. 

(April 27, 2015 at 8:42 pm)IAOALGIV Wrote:

(April 27, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Jericho Wrote: That's actually a good example, Polaris.

And I agree with what Esquilax said.  How does it make sense that with no evidence whatsoever of God's existence, he would expect me to fully buy into a glorified book of fairy tales as reality?  And if I didn't believe this book that has as much realistic information as the How to Train Your Dragon series, then I am going to be tormented in Hell for eternity?

Either way, I believe in none of that.  But even if a god like that existed, I wouldn't want to follow him anyways.

Depends on what you consider evidence. 

I suppose that is true enough. However, I know that I am not the only one who believes there to be no evidence of a god's existence. So it isn't really as if I am the only one missing something. Evidence to me is anything that can undoubtedly prove the existence of a god. Is it too much to ask for irrefutable evidence? I know I am not the only Agnostic Atheist who would gladly reconsider my stance if a god was to actually show up and prove that he/she was real.