Turning the tables on atheism

[R00tKiT]

@Klorophyll

If I say proposition X is true, and you offer counter arguments A, B, and C, and in response to your counter arguments I say, “meh, I believe X is true anyway,” my persistent belief is irrelevant to the quality of either the original proposition or your counter arguments. If you take issue with a specific argument against the god proposition, you need to identify the problem and describe it. You need to give a reason why it’s flawed. 

Further, you should know by now that even if every existing argument against god is in some way flawed, your belief is still not rationally warranted. My inability to present a compelling counter argument to your claim in no way bolsters the likelihood that it’s true. You still bear that burden of proof.

I am not sure to whom you're writing this, since I wasn't arguing for the existence of God in the first place. It's not because I am a Muslim that any thread I ever make should be about God's existence. The argument here is less ambitious: It's more probable than not that large crowds of theists managed to solve the subtleties regarding the problem of evil, the hiddeness of God, infinite regress, etc. and other minor technical issues that appear to stand in the way of theism, and which atheists tend to exaggerate. 

I already explained why this is not an argumentum ad populum, these large crowds of theists are capable of rational thinking, after all, even if we assume that their stance is false. Now because they're capable of logical reasoning, one would expect they found good reasons to maintain faith while acknowledge there is suffering, and since atheists can't build a logical argument against theism based on the existence of evil, they're only left with evidential arguments from evil, that is, probability arguments' that the amount of suffering outweighs evidence for God. And even those fail miserably because the problem of evil is only a problem to some attributes of God, but not his overall existence.....

And what exactly is wrong with rationalization? In any case, it doesn't imply falsehood, it's only a state of mind helping one reach an internally consistent worldview. Atheists rationalize too in the face of the beauty of creation, they say evolutionary theory explains away the need of a designer, well no, it doesn't, the same way managing to fully explain the workings of a car engine doesn't explain away a manufacturing company.

---

I agree, Zebo is asking you to prove that what you argue is a real thing (physical object), not a made up thing (supernatural agent).  Pity you don't try to do that.

You're begging the question, smart guy. If you're assuming supernatural agents are made up, you're already assuming theism is false while asking about proof..

---

Still a reading comprehension problem.  I'm an atheist who has a problem with evil, but the problems of evil aren't part of why I'm an atheist at all.  They're just reasons that the existence of your silly god is irrelevant to my rejection of your very real and shitty religion.

You're not being precise enough about why you reject religion. Are you being honest here? Is really every aspect of Islam the complete opposite of your own morality?

You mean, that's a problem that you don't know and haven't rationalized?  How many more things like this will we find?

I am not sure what's your problem with rationalization. As I said, it doesn't imply falsehood. If we can have an internally consistent theism, then we're better off spend more time on standard arguments for god than argue endlessly about evil and hiddenness, this is the point of my thread.