A Christian's Impartial View of Atheism?

[arewethereyet]

I believe I don't have to defend it's premise as both AI and I agree on it's reasoning. I think even you atheists will find it challenging.

As a further response to a banned shitposter, AI may be artificial, but it is not intelligent.

Here's an AI response to the question of how to keep the cheese on one's pizza:

Damn, that's what's been missing from the pizzas I make.  

[Silver]

AI is akin to the theistic god: knowledgeable but dumb as fuck.

[arewethereyet]

Just think, with AI the evangelicals won't have to come up with their own BS.

[brewer]

I'm so disappointed in the poll choices, no FUCK OFF option.

[Jackalope]

(*) TL;DR
(*) Fuck all polls

[Fireball]

Polls ought to be added to the 30/30 rule?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Polls ought to be added to the 30/30 rule?

Nope.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

I will see if I have patience to respond to each point made.

IN CONSIDERATION OF ATHEISM


It may well be that God, if he exists, when making his plan for man, decided all that could be known of him, was an understanding that God has a fifty fifty chance of being.

This is not true.
Just because there may be only 2 choices; either a god exists, or a god does not exist, does not make it 50/50 odds.

There are only 2 choices; either I am going to get into a car accident on my way home from work today, or I won't. There are only 2 choices. I guess I must be getting into accidents on every other drive home, right?

You have no methods to calculate the odds of there being a god.  

If there is a God who is using planning above our understanding, he allowed in his plan, the freedom to develop logical conclusions based on our ability to reason. Reason makes demand that both sides of any argument be considered, especially when it concerns the Godhead; to learn the difference between good and evil; right and wrong; God or no God!

No gods necessary for any of this.

Just millions of years of biological evolution weeding out organisms that don't have those attributes.

Common sense allows that both sides can be argued equally. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity, make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than fifty percent of the evidence, when in fact, it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side. It is only when subjectivity replaces reason, that we fall short of understanding. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, it becomes just as unreasonable to conclude that there is no God, as to conclude there is. Argument either way can achieve no more than an exercise between Egos. Ego, unfortunately, is the part of us that does not require evidence when presenting what it calls ‘sound doctrine.’ Reason alone presents no disagreement with status quo [50/50], it is when our inherent ignorance is bolstered by the Ego’s insistence, that we mistakenly accept mere opinion as ‘evidence.’

This just looks like a long winded way of improperly passing the burden of proof, from the theist side of the debate, to the non-theist side.

It is not up to those of us that are not convinced of your claims that gods exist, to disprove those claims. It is up to you to support all your claims with: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic.

If you are unable to do so, we are perfectly justified to disbelieve your claims. And so far, it seems as if you have made any attempt to justify your beliefs.

I am very interested in what people believe, but most importantly, WHY they believe it.  

This premise implies that no one person or group knows any more about God than another. When a man ‘teaches’ about God, he tries only to convince himself. There is no superiority among men when it comes to God’s existence, except that which the ignorance in man allows. Any claim of Godly understanding can only be attributed to an attempt to tell of something that fills the void faith is to fill.

Actually, I am not sure I have any problem with this.

No one knows about gods, because gods almost assuredly do not exist.

To this end, I think that theology degrees might be the most useless degrees in existence. They are not really based on the study of gods, they are based on what other people in history have claimed about gods.

This means that the least you can learn about God is equal to the sum of what all others have learned; the highest product of reasoning that can exist without evidence. The acceptance of this gives us the ability to set aside our subjectivity and weigh our conclusions tempered with sound consideration. Wisdom does truly begin and end with admitted ignorance.

IF only this could be taken one step further, and admit the reason why there is ignorance of gods, is because they almost assuredly do not exist.

It remains then; if a man reaches the highest state of learning, me assuming that to be man’s purpose, it will be to the crux that comes into view when a man knows both the lack of evidence proving God, and the hope on which all faiths are based. The definition of hope defines the full human containment of God’s potential. We can ascend to no higher a conclusion than the middle line that separates that which is known and, that which may be God-ness. Having weighed that which is known and that which is not known, a man’s faith will have the purity of being based solely on Hope; a faith that is founded on the humility that exists before all that we don’t know. This allows man to express his faith, in a life that shows benefit from what he does not know! His faith exists in an innocence, shown by a life led in both humility and confidence!

This looks a bit too much like word salad to me.

Maybe I'll come back to it.

Lest someone should say that fifty fifty is being lukewarm, the ‘fifty-fifty view’ is no less devout to the existence of God than those who allow the excesses of Ego that cause men to preen in their faiths. An Atheist can also find himself in the same position, if, ignoring the equal lack of evidence concerning ‘no God’, he bounds in his belief to excess, likewise making claim to knowledge that exists out of his sphere of learning. He [the Atheist] negates the human spirit of hope in exchange for nothing.

Again, you are improperly passing the burden of proof to the atheist.

Maybe you don't understand the atheist position.

Most atheists do not claim, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. Some gods, sure, like those described in "Holy" books (Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, The Avesta, etc). Everyone of those has logical flaws, and contradict other claims in the same "Holy" book for the same god, certainly don't exist.

Most atheists are such, because theists have continually failed (for 1000's of years) to meet their burden of proof. We have not need to support the "no gods exist" side of the debate. We are perfectly justified to not accept theists' claims, purely based on their inability to support them with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic.

Some atheists do make the claim that no gods exist. They do have the burden of proof for their claim. Maybe you should take up your debate with them.

Hope adds to life its own germination. Allowed to grow in a world that has no Godliness [evidenced] of its own, it forms in a man the expression of Good, made manifest and seen, thereby creating a witness as from a Godlike influence!

Are claiming that gods are the source of morals and ethics?

Evolution is perfectly adequate to explain morals and ethics. For example, Bonobo chimps, our closest cousin species, have a pretty complex list of,  what can only be described as morality.

What god do they believe exists?

The strength of one's hope/faith will determine whether the man accepts death carrying with him a Boldness formed in the transcendental fires of hope. Or, there is nothing! In which case, the Boldness so prepared, neither helps nor hinders. Unless you count it of value that a man lives as though worthy of having a God, with he, being representative of the only Godliness to exist, human goodness!


Do you think this is a fair view of Atheism by a Christian?

What does it mean to live one's life " as though worthy of having a God"?

So, basically all I see here is a laundry list of claims and opinions, with not a single piece of evidence and valid and sound logic to support any of it.

Therefore, I will remain unconvinced in the existence of the god you believe exists.