Atheists answer me

[FallentoReason]

hi and hope all are fine

for those who dont believe in god i have a question
which type of evidences do you need to prove the existence of god

what i know it is not necessary to have evidence to prove existence of things

example 1:
suppose in the real world , i can see red color and they are many things have this color e.g blood
in contract the blind cant feel this color, cant see it

so if the blind people say give me an evidence to prove the existence of red color

what shall i say , do i have to make him touch the blood

if he touch it , is it enough ?

no

so do we believe the blind if he say i dont believe in red color

of course no.

believe in god is something out of our control

because a human is restricted in time and space

believe in god is like when a blind asks you to prove the existence of colors

I like your analogy because on the face of it, it puts forth a valid point. However, it's actually flawed, because the people who have eyesight (believers) say to the blind (non-believers) that they *too* can experience the colour red. Therefore, the state of non-belief according to the *believers* is something variable, and *not* permanent like having been born blind. Thus, the analogy doesn't work, and if it did - if non-believers *were* permanently blind - then from the believer's p.o.v. their religion would be pointless and self-defeating. This leads me to think that the "blind" actually aren't blind, but have an impairment in their sense, be it because of sin or whatever other religious reason it might be. This means that the non-believer can potentially also have access to what you experience, but yet it isn't entirely obvious as to how one goes about "seeing". What's more is that from the non-believers p.o.v, they have theists left and right claiming to see *different* colours e.g. Allah, God, Vishnu, YHWH etc.

Perhaps the problem is not the non-believer's apparent flawed sense, but rather the believer's *claim* of an extra sense. If you people can't come to an agreement of the exact nature of god(s), then why should we even entertain the idea that such a sense exists in the first place? It's almost as if your claims are made up, and it's rather funny that the exact nature of your claim that was derived from your extra sense (about the divine) can be traced back to your upbringing/culture/place of birth. Your claim is ironically reducible to a *naturalistic* series of events.