(May 21, 2018 at 2:28 pm)zipperpull Wrote: I'm sure some of you have heard/used this argument in the past, and I was wondering if there's a colloquial term for it?
Something along the lines of:
Billy: I used to be a christian, but I researched my way out.
Joel: Then you were never a true christian.
Billy: I felt like I was, I prayed every day.
Joel: You have to pray more than once a day...
Billy: I did, I was constantly in prayer.
Joel: You weren't praying correctly, you have to ask for forgiveness first.
Billy: I did...every time...
Joel: But did you believe it?
Billy: Yes...
Joel: Well clearly not, because if you did you wouldn't be an atheist now.
If there was a god that was fully powerful and wise, and able, and it wanted me to know it, and to believe in it-and-its-existence, it would know what it would take to convince me of all that. It would have the power, and it would know how to convince me without coercion, just as the "real" Christians have been convinced. Since I haven't been convinced, either the god doesn't want me to be convinced, doesn't care that I be convinced, (or else the god doesn't exist - contradicting the original assumption).
So I'm an atheist because . . .
i) there is no god,
or
ii) the god doesn't care enough to convince me yet.
And don't tell me it's my fault that I'm not convinced - not if the god is fully powerful and wise, and able, and it wants me to know. I may be a crap human, but the god, (if it exists), is a crap communicator.
There are no atheists in terrorist training camps.
