You are ruining the image of Atheists!

[Esquilax]

You don't find this materialist nihilism of yours a little bit depressing/bewildering? I understand the skeptical angle to a certain degree but once you start going on about how God doesn't exist or there is no reason to believe God exists if you don't have hard scientific evidence of some kind I find that baffling, particularly as God isn't meant to be a scientific theory. If you really have a genuine lack of an opinion either way as atheists like to claim then you wouldn't be able to spout off the way you're doing so it has to be a belief or ideology of some kind.

So, my last post mentioned not listening and misrepresenting the atheist position. I'll go into that more this time, and when I do, this will be Exhibit A.

The thing is theists do have various reasons for belief or a faith in God even if they aren't reasons you may like.

It's not a matter of liking and disliking your reasons, it's a matter of whether or not we find those reasons sufficient justification for god belief. If we don't, then that's the next step in the discourse between us. In any other conversation, the next part would be you defending your reasons against our objections; in this conversation, you simply don't respond at all.

Atheists keep insisting that God is some kind of myth.

No, we don't, which is why we keep thinking you aren't listening.

You don't explain why you think that you seem to think it ought to be taken for granted that it is and it's up to theists to prove it via the scientific method.

Are you kidding me? We've explained why so many times, it's the central refrain of the entire damn forum! The basics can be brought down to this; without evidence, there is no justifiable reason to believe a claim, and theists provide no evidence for their position, instead relying on philosophical musings, as if one can just think something into existence.

And the truth is, you've been told this before in other threads in the last few hours. I've read those posts; why haven't you?

That's not really how it works what you have to do is explain why the alternative you have in mind is the truth of the matter as you believe and if you can't demonstrate it explain why it would be better to believe the alternative.

Two things: one, we have explained, and if you've glossed over it that's no fault of ours. Two, not believing you isn't a position on its own, it's a response to your position.

You say god exists. I say, I don't believe you, would you like to prove it? And then you say nothing at all and pretend I have some burden of proof.

You are essentially still playing on the same playing field so it would be better if you can play by the same rules, then you may get somewhere.

We are. You just don't seem to be aware of the other team on the field, for some reason.

Most of your arguments against God are either against the existence of gods in general such as Zeus.

Yup! The key point being that to us, your specific god is a subset of gods in general, and we see no reason to single him out for special treatment when his followers fail in defending against the first hurdle those general objections pose.

We don't believe in those gods either for most part so we would agree there or they're arguments involving science which has nothing to do with the question. All educated people who aren't conspiracy theorists will accept the all same scientific evidence we currently have. If you want to bring up issues like the problem of evil that can be dealt with.

You understand that there's more ways to prove existential claims than just science, right? Pick one of those and have at it. But you can't just define things into existence.

Also, when we employ science, it's generally against biblical literalism, if you'll notice. We do that because science is a shotgun, easy answer for those cases.

Question: does your god influence the physical world in any way at all, and has he ever in the past?

If you remove the non-physical element of reality what the heck do you think you're going to be left with? Yes it would be the same thing.

Except we aren't saying that the only thing in the world is physical. We're saying that there's no reason to believe in things without a form of demonstration that it exists. Are you not listening again?

We all accept, or should accept, methodological naturalism. That's science, it's a different subject.

Yes, so stop trying to pile materialism on top of that, it's dishonest.

You keep claiming not to have a belief/opinion on the existence of God?

Is it my opinion that you guys have not provided sufficient reason to believe in your god.

A lack of a belief as you like to call it. Again if you're on the same playing field you have to play by the rules, you have a belief in something you feel to be true and can't be demonstrated scientifically.

So, you're ignoring earlier when I said that I don't believe that god doesn't exist? Okay, if you're happy lying, that's fine...

So what you have to do explain why you think this true and why it's better to believe in it.

Yes: no evidence.

If it isn't better then just have faith in a loving eternal God instead it won't kill you. Try it for a week you might like it, if you already tried have another go with a better understanding of what a faith is. It's not something particularly different to what you're doing now it's just the other way.

Let's not pretend that belief is a choice, either...

They say things that they can't know for certain that fairies or invisible pink unicorns don't exist either. The implication being they're sure as fuck that fairies and invisible pink unicorns don't exist, but they can't know for a fact they don't.

We're making a comparison, dude: we're asking you why you don't believe in fairies or unicorns, and your response, as is ours, is that you have no reason to. There's no evidence.

The implication being that you haven't any reason to believe in god either, barring a personal experience... which... well, just look up "Cottingley Fairies" to see why that is a bad way to get to belief.

I can post something a lot worse.

You could just stick to what our position actually is, instead. That'd be nice.