When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Delicate]

Sure, I'd be interested in having a relationship with this being. But simply being convinced it exists is not enough to be able to interact with it. It needs to interact back. Feel free to send it my way. If it continues to hide from me, then that's too bad. Either way, I'm not going to worship it. If it is already trying to interact with me, but failing to even get my attention, then this is not consistent with a supreme being.

Your conclusions show no understanding at all, you seem to have just reinforced your belief that atheists are stupid.

Atheism is, by default, a position of uncertainty. Of admitting the truth is not yet clear. You still haven't shown you actually understand what atheism is.

If I misread your position, I apologise. But that's all I can see, especially given what you have "learned", which reflect the things you have said from the start. If you want to show me otherwise, then please do so. Just telling me to look at your posts does not change their content, which I've already seen plenty of. Look at the title of this thread.

I think a reasonable person would be more willing to express some intellectual humility about their expectations of God's conduct. This doesn't mean one can't raise objections. Rather, it means a more thoughtful and reflective attitude before one expresses blind certitude in what God "needs" to do, that God is "failing to get your attention" etc.

You seem very certain of some very uncharitable interpretations. Suggestive of someone who bears a deep unhappiness about the idea of God's existence prior to discussion. 

Not judging, but it's worth pointing out. These prior prejudices are powerful distorters of one's reasoning.

As for my conclusions, they aren't inferred so much as directly experienced. It's what I come across every day that I'm on here. And I'm ready to substantiate, if you want. Just so you know I'm not merely slandering atheists so much as reflecting my experience. 

PS- your definition sounds like that of agnosticism, not atheism.

[robvalue]

If something wants to interact with me, then it needs to interact. That's kind of unavoidable. If you can explain how this thinking is flawed, then please do so. If it chooses not to, then there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not going to spend what little time I have on this earth pandering to it and begging for its attention, just because other people seem to be convinced it is interacting with them. I've seen no evidence it is interacting with anybody.

I'm here, ready and willing to interact. How much more humility can I have?

God, wherever you are, hello. I'm robvalue. I look forward to your response.

Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. You are showing you do not understand the terms as commonly used. Please check out my website here for more details.

Please take the time to learn what we mean by these terms, even if you mean something different by them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If a group of people refused to believe one of your friends didn't exist, and their reasons for disbelief were absolutely moronic, wouldn't you be curious to understand how these people function?

No.  I would first introduce them to my friend in person.  If they continued denying their existence, and I was sure they existed, I would start to question my sanity.  I would not assume that I am right, and that the group of people are wrong.

dingdingdingding

[robvalue]

What I find rather less humble is people that presume to speak for God, to tell me what he wants, how I should go about approaching him, and telling me why God appears to be ignoring me.

Can't he speak for himself?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But the ground of good and evil, the source of all of reality and the mind of such a perfect and powerful being, one who is supposed to love you more than anything, arouses no personal, non-scientific interest or curiosity whatsoever?

Assuming your conclusion. No gods are required fr morality to be extant.

As for what I've learned:

1) The atheists on this forum are, largely, deeply anti-intellectual and uninterested in developing their critical thinking. My attempts to engage rationally was initially completely or predominantly unprofitable.

... said the faith-based lecturer.

2) Most anti-theism here is deeply emotional. The responses here towards theism overflows with rage, hatred, contempt, and other negative feelings. Very little in the way of rational argument goes on.

No, the anti-theism here is rationally-based. The contempt, hatred, and "rage" you feel is directed against religion, not theism; for while theists here are welcomed so long as they're thoughtful, even those welcome theists feel the sting when they try to defend their organized religion.

You'd do well to learn the difference.

3) For most of my interlocutors, truth is unimportant of a view. They won't pursue uncomfortable truths, but they will pursue what sits nicely with a priori atheistic commitments.

... says the guy who assumes god exists and goes from there. When, on this forum, have you questioned your assumptions? Let us have a link to that post, so that we may see your example of intellectual honesty.

What's that? You have none? Fuck me, that is startling.

4) This might be a general problem, not just one that afflicts atheists. When people study things that go against their beliefs, their desire to understand and comprehension ability plummet. 

lol, a Christian complaining about confirmation bias?

I'll think of a fifth later.

Tired neurons, eh? Put ten on break, and let the other ten take over.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think a reasonable person would be more willing to express some intellectual humility about their expectations of God's conduct.

... said the Christian who claims to know his god.

Tell us what you know about your god. Be specific.

Your hubris is exceeded only by your lack of introspection.

[robvalue]

Look at all the theists, and atheists, that can easily get my attention and interact with me. See how willing and able I am to do so.

I can only conclude that "God", if it exists, is either less able or less willing to communicate with me. And if it's as powerful as people say, it should know a way to communicate with me that I can't overlook.

If it wants me to do something first, but won't tell me what it is, and instead sends garbled messages through millions of other people that all contradict each other, then he's bang out of luck. I don't consider this a sensible way to go about communicating with someone you actually want to communicate with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You won't see a prior definition of "god" that makes sense from theists, yet you're not complaining about that. If you care this much about intellectual honesty, perhaps you should show some yourself.

I'm not complaining because it's not true.

The definitions of God I've seen taken seriously are perfectly coherent. What makes you think they make no sense might be a cognitive disability on your part, not a problem with the definition.

Just sayin'.

PS- If you want to defend your claim, you're welcome to demonstrate how a philosophically-informed definition of God makes no sense.

You'll need to present that definition first. I'm not in the habit of swatting at marshmallows, and I'm not about to start with your non-definition.

[Joods]

Not judging, but it's worth pointing out. These prior prejudices are powerful distorters of one's reasoning.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Brian37]

Fucking dolt. I already handed you your ass on this in the other thread. I'll repeat the argument anyway.

Evidence for QM exists regardless of any individual's ignorance. The evidence is made available and is repeatable for any and all to see and participate in if they so choose. The same cannot be said for supposed evidence for god. If there was one shred of evidence it would be made known immediately for all to see. The fact that instead of demonstrating said evidence you choose to say that we are too blind to see suggests you have absolutely nothing.

There is also no such thing as theistic evidence. You've got nothing but bullshit arguments that setup some type of ignorant quandary in which to insert your notion of god. It's ridiculous, it's not evidence. You cannot define or argue your deity into existence.

I always like to take the time to remind people that there is not simply one religion worldwide that when they cant debunk science they try to co opt science. 

Debunking QM as if you could, would not make Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh or Jesus or Apollo real deities. Religions worldwide and all god claims past and present are nothing more than clubs humans invent. Science does not give one shit about human's personal bias and fantasy clubs. Science is completely independent of our species willful ignorance and notoriously flawed perceptions. Religion is really no different than if one were to worship The Force of Star Wars. 

Once you accept the earth as being 4 billion years old which is fact, and you accept the universe as being 14 billion years old and once you know that there are 10s of billions of stars in just our galaxy alone, and that it takes 100,000 years for a ray of light at the speed of like to travel from one end to the other, and you know the 100s of billions of galaxies in the known universe, there simply is no way to justify the ignorance of antiquity.