Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[Astreja]

I have had many discussions with adherents of biological evolution, but whenever I challenge them to explain how, for example, abiogenesis occurred, or for biological evolution to happen thereafter, they typically resort to ad hominem. Why?

You're a hypocritical, spammy and dishonest poseur who claims he understands evolution but then spouts some nonsense about beetles changing into something else.  We are merely pointing out your egregious character flaws, which are -- surprise, surprise -- apparently not remediable by the practice of Christinsanity.

Thank you for reinforcing My resolve to never, ever become a Christian.  Whatever disease you're carrying, I don't want to catch it.

[Minimalist]

Eagles hunt prey two miles above the ground, humans do not. So, God created eagles with eyesight to see prey from two miles away. Pretty simple.

I agree.  You are pretty simple.

Now all you have to do is produce evidence that your particular variant of the invisible sky daddy actually exists.  I'll wait.

[Nishant]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

---

Read the book "The evolution of Gods".
It will clear your all doubts about atheism, religions and gods.
link: <SNIP>

Moderator Notice

LP- Link Removed. Please read the forum rules. This is not an advertizing site and you must accrue 30 days of membership and have 30 posts to post links

[Opoponax]

The guy doesn't want to know anything. It takes hard work to know sciencey stuff. It's much easier to read websites and book written specifically for the willfully ignorant.
I admire those of you who take the time to try to explain these things to the OP, but have you ever gotten one of these people to change their minds?

[robvalue]

There have been a few theists who have come here and given things proper thought, and even changed their position on some things. It's probably only about 1% overall, with the rest uninterested in listening or learning.

I've heard that 95% of the people who view this forum are passers by, so that's a lot of people who can think about what we say, even if the direct audience is unlikely to respond well.

[downbeatplumb]

There have been a few theists who have come here and given things proper thought, and even changed their position on some things. It's probably only about 1% overall, with the rest uninterested in listening or learning.

I've heard that 95% of the people who view this forum are passers by, so that's a lot of people who can think about what we say, even if the direct audience is unlikely to respond well.

I think some theists see it as a right of passage to test their faith against the atheist. What I have seen by these is that they are all transmit and no receive. They came here to tell us not to listen to what we say.
What I find particularly galling is when they try to use science and come out things that were answered, in some cases, hundreds of years ago. Paleys watch being the one that makes me groan the most.

[Minimalist]

The guy doesn't want to know anything. It takes hard work to know sciencey stuff. It's much easier to read websites and book written specifically for the willfully ignorant.
I admire those of you who take the time to try to explain these things to the OP, but have you ever gotten one of these people to change their minds?

You are correct.  Most of them are shitheads.  The rest are just trolls.

[Asmodee]

The guy doesn't want to know anything. It takes hard work to know sciencey stuff. It's much easier to read websites and book written specifically for the willfully ignorant.
I admire those of you who take the time to try to explain these things to the OP, but have you ever gotten one of these people to change their minds?

That always seems to be the case, doesn't it?  There are essentially 3 reasons to have this conversation.  You want to teach someone something, you want to learn something from someone or you just want to argue.  Most of the time they think they want to teach us something but are completely unwilling or unable to learn that what they're trying to teach us is utterly stupid.  We would have to become dumber to "learn" what they want to teach us.  But they generally don't come to a place like this with even the willingness to accept that they might possibly be wrong on any given point.  Hell, most of the time they don't even really know why they believe the things that they do, which is kind of important if you want to give others a reason to believe it.

So they tend to come to a forum like this with the idea that they're going to teach us something and, since they're unwilling to learn, it immediately devolves into remaining here just to argue.  Many times they think that they can force it into our heads if they just repeat the point over and over again.  Even more often they quickly start the blame game, where they blame us for their failure to convince us.  It's because we don't want to learn.  It's because we worship ourselves as gods.  It's because we don't want to follow God's will.  It's because we are too embroiled in the religion of atheism.  It's because we are so biased.  It's because we are really mean, bad people.  And they just LOVE to use the word "fact", almost always using to describe "very much not a fact".

In the case of the OP, he is clearly already here to argue.  In the very first post he already started claiming his beliefs as being "facts".  It sets a combative tone for the discussion to follow, which he can then blame us for.  Believers in God need a devil.  Since no devil is forthcoming, tag, we're it.

[zebo-the-fat]

the concept of God is so unlikely because of a total lack of testable evidence

[Astonished]

the concept of God is so unlikely because of a total lack of testable evidence

And the nearly limitless amount of evidence that the very concept of said god is logically impossible.