Atheist Becomes Catholic

[Sword of Christ]

Atheism is a claim as well. At least if you want to argue against the belief or faith in God in favor of what would be material scientific naturalism.

And no atheist has ever claimed that science has proved god either way.

You don't need to make a claim when you're making an assumption. Some people may simply assume God exists though that isn't necessarily the right idea either.

Science is the study of reality.

The part of reality we can observe, detect and test. Though you'll think we can observe, detect and test everything no doubt. Can we even observe, detect and test consciousness? No, but we know it exists.

If your god cannot fit in with the study of reality, then he is not real.

Prove to me you're a conscious being not some kind of automation or simulation of one that acts as though it is. By your logic I'll consider myself to be the only consciously aware being in existence as I will only believe what can be proven and demonstrated as a certain fact. Sure I can see you, via a scan I could see your brain and neurological activity but I don't see your consciousness.

If your god cannot fit in with the study of reality, then he is not real.

You have it the wrong way around, reality itself fits God he created it he is the reason why it exists at all. Though you don't think there is a reason for it.

However, if he could become disprovable, then he would actually suddenly become a part of reality.

God isn't a part of reality God is context for why reality exists in the first place.

The fact he is unprovable is NOT a strength of the theistic argument; it is, in fact, the very basis of you not being allowed to claim your stance to be rational, reasonable, or logical in any context other than your subjective own.

That's fine reasoning if God was ever meant to be physical object in this universe we could observe but that was never the idea.

I believe you're literally a dickless bitch with a solid stone slab for a brain. I claim you are, in fact. Oh, sure, you might go get a brain scan to show otherwise and you might be able to look between your legs to know otherwise, but I am claiming both of these to be true, and this is rational because I claim this, and I bet I can convince a good number of people that this is truth, and even if you bring to bear a whole load of proof showing this can't be the case, my subjective truth over-rides yours entirely because it is objective, because I claim it so and have others who believe me, therefore it is rational.

Theists do an opinion regarding nature of reality, they have what they consider to be the historical evidence to back this opinion up and they have what they believe to be experiential evidence to reaffirm their stance. Atheists have an opinion aaand...*gesticulates*... they have an opinion. Alright but why is that opinion more likely to be factually true than the alternative? Because it's you personally who has this opinion therefore it's the true one and any opinion that differs from this has to be untrue unless proven otherwise?

You believe the bible is true because it says so and others believe it's true and that actually somehow means something.

I'm not particularly limited to the Bible, note how I described myself. But certainly the Biblical view of God does fit my general concept of what God is and his relationship to ourselves. In any case I think I've demonstrated by now that I have given this a bit of thought, I'm not believing anything I'm told. The question is whether you have or not.

Even though there is lots of undeniable proof to show it isn't

It isn't a book of history if that's what you're saying it's better to see it as a spiritual tool that sets out Gods relationship with humanity. There is some real history in there of course as it's about a people and their experience and encounters with God.