Evidence

[Anomalocaris]

I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence?

So they could either realize that their claims are bullshit and stop believing in it, or else realize that their religion is based solely on faith and stop bugging everyone who's not a member of their religion about it.

Don't you think if they ever had enough brains to wrap around concept and implications of "There is no evidence", they would have stopped being theists by this point in the 21st century?

[Whateverist]

So they could either realize that their claims are bullshit and stop believing in it, or else realize that their religion is based solely on faith and stop bugging everyone who's not a member of their religion about it.

Don't you think if they ever had enough brains to wrap around concept and implications of "There is no evidence", they would have stopped being theists by this point in the 21st century?

Come on, we both know evolution doesn't work that way. A theist doesn't become an atheist just like that. There have to be intermediary stages. First they would begin to show signs of uncertainty. Then they might try other alternative explanations before finally they threw their arms in the air and admitted they just don't know, thus becoming agnostic. At that point, they would either say "screw it" I'm channeling God somehow or other, I'm sticking to belief. Or else they'd try to keep channeling God but the channel would go dead and they'd be on their own. Eventually they might decide they'd been mistaken. But that is how evolution works, many small steps.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

So they could either realize that their claims are bullshit and stop believing in it, or else realize that their religion is based solely on faith and stop bugging everyone who's not a member of their religion about it.

Don't you think if they ever had enough brains to wrap around concept and implications of "There is no evidence", they would have stopped being theists by this point in the 21st century?

They'd have to understand the concept of evidence first

[Mothonis]

Two old fish are talking about the temperature of the water. A young fish asks "what's water?"

Oh, wait, I know this one!

And then one of the old fish turns to the young fish and says "open your eyes!" and the young fish swims away, disappointed with the low information content of the answer, his question unfulfilled. He's also thoroughly convinced that the old fish is senile, or possibly just full of shit when it comes to the existence of water.

Oh wait, no! I've got a better one!

The old fish says to the young fish, "water is everywhere, just open your eyes." Of course, in doing so, the old fish is missing out on the fact that this is demonstrably untrue, that water is not, in fact, everywhere, because there's also land, where water isn't present. Thinking about it, in the grand total of space in the universe, water is uncommon in the extreme. The old fish, it seems, is unable to distinguish between his blinkered and limited view of the world, and the totality of the real world. The young fish proceeds to prove him wrong by merely swimming to the surface and leaping momentarily into the air.

The old fish disagrees, and in order to prove himself right, swims deeper into the dark depths of the water. As he disappears from sight, the young fish hears a fading "see? There's still water down here! Water must be everywhere!"

Esquilax destroyer of theism.Chad just quit now and stop emberassing yourself.

[Doubting Thomas]

So they could either realize that their claims are bullshit and stop believing in it, or else realize that their religion is based solely on faith and stop bugging everyone who's not a member of their religion about it.

Don't you think if they ever had enough brains to wrap around concept and implications of "There is no evidence"

Let me know when that happens. So far I keep hearing about these mountains of evidence for God which nobody seems to be able to show.

[Walking Void]

The evidence for a god is credit stolen from natural observation.

"Oh look, a tree! God!"

"Oh look, a tree! Wood!"

See the difference? If it exists, a god has 'something' to do with it. Even if the link bears not a shred of importance.

[Fruity]

Therefore, god.

Therefore proving how literal minded you can be.

No, your statement proved how literal minded you can be. If you don't get what I meant by what I said, then you need fixin'. Let me spell it out for you.

One fish tells the other that the evidence for what water is rests in the water. If it wasn't for the water, then how do you explain the very existence of the two fish in this scene? How do you explain all the sea creatures and plants? How would you explain the surface and the need for certain animals to go there, breathe, and then go back down? How would you explain the boats even? Open your eyes! Water is everywhere. It's in the animals you mingle with, and the ones you eat. It's in the beauty of the colors all around. Don't you see? So...

Fish, boats, sea plants, colors, surface, therefore, water. The problem with this analogy is that we know what water is composed of. We can contain it and study it. We can swim in it, drink it, watch animals live in it, etc. If you take a fish out of it, it dies. If you stop drinking it, you die.

So, open your eyes and see the proof of god everywhere. He's everywhere, man! Thing is, I stopped believing and I'm here. I stopped reading the Bible, and I'm still here. How do you want to study the role of the god in the world? Can you contain a few ounces so we can study it together? Do you know what it is composed of? How can you prove to me that what you call evidence is, well evidence? I see a rock, but what does that tell me about your god? Nothing. If the fish saw a coral reef, the fish can assume it's due to living in the ocean, because it requires water to survive. Apply that to the whole god thing. How does looking around and opening my eyes say anything about the god? Yeah, there's a cloud. I can explain that. Yeah, there's sand, I can explain that, too. There's life, yup. There's plants, yup. So... where does your god come in to fit that analogy?

I repeat, two old fish are talking about the temperature of the water. A young fish asks "what's water?" Therefore, god. Seems silly to me.

[Ryantology]

Don't you think if they ever had enough brains to wrap around concept and implications of "There is no evidence", they would have stopped being theists by this point in the 21st century?

Come on, we both know evolution doesn't work that way. A theist doesn't become an atheist just like that. There have to be intermediary stages. First they would begin to show signs of uncertainty. Then they might try other alternative explanations before finally they threw their arms in the air and admitted they just don't know, thus becoming agnostic. At that point, they would either say "screw it" I'm channeling God somehow or other, I'm sticking to belief. Or else they'd try to keep channeling God but the channel would go dead and they'd be on their own. Eventually they might decide they'd been mistaken. But that is how evolution works, many small steps.

It's true. Once was, I was a Christian who used to chase my own tail trying to account for all of the discrepancies of my faith when some atheist would call attention to them. Truth be told, I was at least as much convinced by seeing other Christians repeatedly fail to justify their beliefs than in my own inadequacy to do the same. It was different when I could see my beliefs being attacked and nobody else was any better than I was at defending them.

That's why I'll still give Drich or Lion the time of day. I know I can't change their minds--you can't plant seeds in concrete--but any semi-reasonable theists who witness them flail about like beached goldfish, or deliver meaningless packing peanut answers such as the first response in this thread, may experience the same epiphany I did. It does take time, though.

[ChildOfReason]

An exact parallel to the argument that the evidence of god is everywhere would be:
Two old men are talking about floog. The young man is familiar with floog. Floog has been said to have created everything, and takes the form of an invisible, intangible and generally insensible being. The young man asks the two old men where the evidence of Floog is, and they state that everything is evidence of Floog. The young man looks around, and sees no evidence for Floog, then notifies the old man that he does not see Floog. The old man gives him a book called the Iruf. The Iruf states that Floog exists, and the old man uses the Iruf to argue. The young man then points out why that is a fallacy, and the old man realizes this. For some reason, the adamant old man still believes in Floog to this day, despite his argument being easily refuted.

[Neo-Scholastic]

An analogy is used to illustrate a point, not to serve as the point.