Why you can't find God

[MilesAbbott81]

Even if wrong, my analysis of your prior post is a direct response to its argument and therefore not conceivably a form of ignoring it, so you simply prove yourself to be a bit of a liar.  Well, if you insist that I explain it to you....

Not sure what you're saying here. What you've written seems really vague to me.

Atheism having no purpose fails to demonstrate any reason why it would be less in need of excuses than any other subject with attendant apologia.

It's in no need of "excuses" because it's not trying to prove anything, only disprove. There are no moral tenets, no being in charge, no intangible elements that go beyond anything science can measure.

And it doesn't follow that if atheism has no purpose other than to discount theism that it therefore cannot be a locus of truth and knowledge.  Furthermore it's simply not true.  Atheism serves the same purpose as theism, namely that of fulfilling people's need to understand the universe around them and what their being in it means to them. Since the reason you give for atheism not needing any excuses is a non sequitur then it is by definition an unreasonable objection.

Atheism isn't anything more than a lack of belief in a God or gods. There is no substance to it beyond that. You might have people who label themselves as such whom you listen to or whose books you read, but as I said, there is no set of rules it adheres to, no arguments that can be made against it except its inherent opposition to theism. It isn't atheism that provides a fulfillment of some need to understand the universe, it's applications of science and/or some kind of philosophy that attempt to do that. Frankly, atheism itself is utterly absent of any meaning except that which the idea of God/gods gives it.

So I'm sorry, but that's all nonsense.

Science isn't a philosophy.  It isn't necessary for things to be a philosophy in order for them to attract defendants whose defenses are nothing more than excuses, so it doesn't follow that science not being a philosophy is the reason it doesn't promote excuses and it most certainly doesn't follow that it is not a locus of truth and knowledge because philosophies aren't the only bearers of truth and knowledge.  So, this, too, is a non sequitur and therefore unreasonable.

I never said science was a philosophy. Science is an activity, and as such it has, once again, no tenets or associated philosophy, and therefore no goal or purpose and obviously in no need of excuses when someone fails to provide proof of something.

Philosophy being a generic term is also another nonsensical non sequitur.  I'm not even sure that "generic term" isn't a bit of malapropism, but I think you meant general term, rather than generic.  Regardless, I'll give you a bit of credit in that it may not have been clear what I was referring to by the term philosophy, so I will clarify.  Oxford languages dictionary defines philosophy as, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."  It's not obvious why you think those defending claims arising from the study of the fundamental nature of things would garner any less apologetics, nor exclude such apologia being populated by excuses, so this is another non sequitur.  The term is broad, but clearly relevant to bodies of thought that attract claims, solicit apologia, are unconstrained as to the specific character of its apologia, and most certainly is considered a locus of truth and knowledge.  My God, the word 'philosophy' literally means "love of knowledge," the suggestion that it is not relevant to my argument is not only unreasonable, it is absurd.

All I was asking for was some philosophy in particular so that I could respond to something less "general." And actually, all philosophy that has a stated goal or purpose would be in need of an excuse if one were to fail in attaining whatever goal that philosophy offered. When people fail to turn their lives around after listening to Jordan Peterson, for instance, I would say that philosophy is indeed in need of an excuse at that point in time. Those who have failed to become an ubermensch will need to make excuses for Nietzsche. Therefore your assertion that philosophy requires no excuses is easily provable as false.

And the last, whether you're full of excuses, is a bit of a straw man, and therefore a red herring, but in as much as it is indirectly aimed at my argument, it is a form of argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone, and is by its very nature fallacious and invalid.  There is nothing reasonable about fallacious objections which don't even address the actual argument, but rather simply exorcise a bit of apparent butthurt.  Whether you, personally, are filled with excuses about your Christianity does nothing to address whether religion, generally, is full of excuses.  As such, this is a red herring and therefore also unreasonable.

You seem determined to shove some kind of logical fallacy down my throat, when you barely addressed my long and carefully constructed original post. And frankly, saying "you were never a true Christian" isn't an excuse. It's an explanation. An excuse infers that there is some fault on behalf of the philosophy, when I have conceded no fault at all.

And I'm aware of the "no true scotsman" fallacy if you'd like to hit me with that next. That fallacy might be applicable if I were willing to accept that I have to abide by your logical fallacy rules, which I'm not, because the truth of the matter is that there are true and false Christians, and ways to identify both. If one is unwilling to accept that, well, not my problem.

Please do not labor under the delusion that I'm here to convince any atheist. My post clearly addressed a target audience of those still looking for answers, but who have mistakenly sought counsel from any of the many people still lurking here in darkness.