If these resident theists really talk to god..

[Tonus]

I think most Christians would see that as asking god to perform a parlor trick. I always understood the idea of prayer to be to keep god's will and purposes in mind when asking for anything, and understanding that if you did not get it or got something different, then your prayer was answered. Even if it was in an unexpected manner.

[Whateverist]

Because even if we did any or all of those things, you still would not be convinced. You can always find some reason to not believe.

I don't really disagree. Nothing I can think of would cause me to acquire the disposition to believe, short of evidence. If gods reached out to me personally and answered my questions I would instantly believe that the world includes these things too. But you're right, there is really nothing you as a believer can do that is going to affect my disposition toward woo.

[Drich]

Because even if we did any or all of those things, you still would not be convinced. You can always find some reason to not believe.

because you would claim it was a trick, and therefore would be a waist of time.

Yet again, that is not your call to make. Why are you so quick to assume how we would think?

As a quick perusal of the threads show, posting biblespam to prove the bible says something about what the bible says is a "waist" of time, as does telling us there's evidence out there but never actually showing it, but most of you do it anyway.

Again a youtube trick would be a waist of time for anyone who does not already believe.

I said that you guys need to experience God for yourself, to witness it, and to question it and the circumstances. Which is provided/offered to you if you A/S/K

---

If they talk to their god, could they ask him/her/them to make a live appearance? Yeah, we don't seem to see them like they used to. Not even a burning bush or a talking animal.

If you see God again, it will be too late for you to do anything about it.

That is why He uses messengers.

[John V]

Because even if we did any or all of those things, you still would not be convinced. You can always find some reason to not believe.

because you would claim it was a trick, and therefore would be a waist of time.

Yet again, that is not your call to make. Why are you so quick to assume how we would think?

Personally I would rephrase their points as, Even if you did believe, you would still rebel, so god has no reason to do these things. Many atheists openly say that even if god were proven to them, they'd want nothing to do with him. It's not an unusual position. So, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's just a matter of evidence. James noted that the issue isn't believing in god's existence - the demons believe that much.

[FallentoReason]

Yet again, that is not your call to make. Why are you so quick to assume how we would think?

Personally I would rephrase their points as, Even if you did believe, you would still rebel, so god has no reason to do these things. Many atheists openly say that even if god were proven to them, they'd want nothing to do with him. It's not an unusual position. So, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's just a matter of evidence. James noted that the issue isn't believing in god's existence - the demons believe that much.

Double-edged sword my friend: these demons are proof that knowledge of God doesn't take away free will. On that note, shame that God won't go beyond just authoring a less-than-perfect book in order to establish his existence. It's as if he doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough to show himself beyond doubt such that the question now becomes "to follow Jesus or not" instead of "to follow Jesus or not... or Buddha, or Confucius, or Mohammed etc".

[Captain Colostomy]

I think most Christians would see that as asking god to perform a parlor trick. I always understood the idea of prayer to be to keep god's will and purposes in mind when asking for anything, and understanding that if you did not get it or got something different, then your prayer was answered. Even if it was in an unexpected manner.

How bloody convenient. Whether god assents, alters or ignores, the prayer was answered. Praise Jesus!

[Cyberman]

Personally I would rephrase their points as, Even if you did believe, you would still rebel, so god has no reason to do these things. Many atheists openly say that even if god were proven to them, they'd want nothing to do with him. It's not an unusual position. So, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's just a matter of evidence. James noted that the issue isn't believing in god's existence - the demons believe that much.

You'd have to get past that huge 'if' first, before we could even talk about whether any gods are worthy of worship. To assert us of closed-mindedness to the point where all evidence is instantly rejected without consideration is to completely miss the point that such evidence as is presented is always shown to be either uncompelling, irrelevant to the claim or simply not what it is purported to be, and is a pre-emptive demeaning of one's opponent. I think it was Tracey Harris of The Atheist Experience who likened people making god claims to people making claims about the social structure of Bigfoot - what it/they eat, habitat, life cycle etc. Unless and until the animal is shown even to be an actual animal, all else that hangs from that single initial presupposition of its existence is pointless speculation.

Thank you, Drich, for acknowledging that what is usually touted as evidence is only convincing to people who already believe. That's what many of us have been saying all along.

[Drich]

You'd have to get past that huge 'if' first, before we could even talk about whether any gods are worthy of worship. To assert us of closed-mindedness to the point where all evidence is instantly rejected without consideration is to completely miss the point of what evidence is and is a pre-emptive demeaning of one's opponent. I think it was Tracey Harris of The Atheist Experience who likened people making god claims to people making claims about the social structure of Bigfoot - what it/they eat, habitat, life cycle etc. Unless and until the animal is shown even to be an actual animal, all else that hangs from that single initial presupposition of its existence is pointless speculation.

Thank you, Drich, for acknowledging that what is usually touted as evidence is only convincing to people who already believe. That's what many of us have been saying all along.

Do you honestly not see the amount of cherry picking you have to do to maintain your disbelief?

[Cyberman]

What disbelief am I trying to maintain? I simply lack belief; I don't actively refuse to believe. So no cherry-picking is required.

Nice ad hom/deflection combo, btw.

[Drich]

What disbelief am I trying to maintain? I simply lack belief; I don't actively refuse to believe. So no cherry-picking is required.

Not true. Look at how you changed what I said to suit your disbelief.