Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

[SalixIncendium]

All depends on what we know about the subject at the moment. Most things, more so at the frontiers of knowledge, are still being investigated. New data can make a hypothesis dormant or redundant. 'Steady-State' or 'Multiverse' are ideas in that category.

But until that new data is presented, is the hypothesis illogical or disingenuous?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What it boils down to, I think, is proselytizing in both directions.

People like to treat their worldview like a favorite toy. That toy brings them happiness and joy, so since it does for them, they assume it will for everyone else. So they try to convince others that their life will be happier and more joyful if they had the same toy. They don't stop to thing that people have their own toys that make them just as happy and joyful.

I don't believe so. There are more believers post on the boards than atheist. I only notice atheist really care if they don't post their own threads is when the theist make the claim.

The thing is, some atheists actually want to know what brings that believer joy and happiness. Many theist say god and that's it. Others say it's private. Others say they need faith.

Why on earth would it be the fault of an atheist (an actual person) whose curious about another's belief if the person he ask doesn't know how to explain it in "human words" themselves?

Theists aren't the victims.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For what purpose? Who benefits from this?

It has been since the arrival of humans or perhaps even before that (Neanderthals too may have had some sort of religion. They dressed with dead with red ochre). Religious flags were hoisted by shamans in the hope of personal benefit. Those who did so in historical times, also did it for the same purpose (since as an atheist I do not believe that any God or Allah ordered them to do so). - if I have understood your question correctly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Theists aren't the victims.

I have no idea where this is coming from. I never make such an implication.

 

[McBell]

For what purpose?

To demonstrate that without anything to support their claim it will be dismissed.
I have found that people tend to not try shoving their beliefs down my throat once they find out that i am not about to take bold empty claims for anything other than bold empty claims.

Who benefits from this?

It benefits me in that I do not have to waste time with bold empty claims.
It benefits those who know not to bother me with bold empty claims by saving them time not pestering me with them

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

Your analogy (aka strawman) only really works if this "gorgeous person" is immaterial and invisible, so that you can't be sure he/she/it is not just in your imagination, and only gorgeous in your thought.

And of course, if that person is immaterial, then any love-making you might engage in would not involve any physical sensations not caused by you yourself. In which case, you might as well be masturbating.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

Now is this a real gorgeous person, or as others have put forward, an imaginary one? I'm not so sure blind hookups are the best venture.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To demonstrate that without anything to support their claim it will be dismissed.
I have found that people tend to not try shoving their beliefs down my throat once they find out that i am not about to take bold empty claims for anything other than bold empty claims.


It benefits me in that I do not have to waste time with bold empty claims.
It benefits those who know not to bother me with bold empty claims by saving them time not pestering me with them

Good answers, but I think you're addressing the questions out of context.

The question was asked in response to an atheist demonstrating that a theist has based something of monumental importance on a fairy tale. It was asking who benefits from an atheist telling a theist that their view is a fairy tale. Isn't it enough to say I don't accept your claim? Does the atheist have impose their views on the theist? If so, for what purpose and who benefits?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your analogy (aka strawman) only really works if this "gorgeous person" is immaterial and invisible, so that you can't be sure he/she/it is not just in your imagination, and only gorgeous in your thought.

And of course, if that person is immaterial, then any love-making you might engage in would not involve any physical sensations not caused by you yourself. In which case, you might as well be masturbating.

Vr stereoscopic is much better anyways. Short of the real thing which im not getting anyways. *grin*

 

[Aupmanyav]

But until that new data is presented, is the hypothesis illogical or disingenuous?

It is logical and sometimes very ingeneous (Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was one such). They have some proof for it. There cannot be a hypothesis which is absolutely without evidence, like a perpetual machine. In a future time, with more information, hypotheses undergo modification. That is how science goes about it. You know all that. A bit surprised that you asked.

 

[blü 2]

How is that question relevant to the topic?

Because of the equation of sexual and divine love in the OP ─ which seems to me to be a most misdirected simile.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The question was asked in response to an atheist demonstrating that a theist has based something of monumental importance on a fairy tale. It was asking who benefits from an atheist telling a theist that their view is a fairy tale. Isn't it enough to say I don't accept your claim? Does the atheist have impose their views on the theist? If so, for what purpose and who benefits?

It is the people who have got their nose cut (Emperor's Clothes). The cut-noses want the noses of other people also cut. Other than that, there is no need even to raise the issue. Why should someone tell me that he/she believes in this or that book, this or that savior, and belongs to this or that religion? Did I ask for it? Why should they post long passages of verbiage repeatedly from what their Shaman said or wrote, when it is apparent that an atheist will not believe it without evidence of which they have none?
Are you satisfied with this answer or should I make further effort?

 

[Koldo]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

Actually, it is more like:

A random person shows up saying there is this gorgeous person willing to have sex with everyone and that I should really get my name on the list. When I ask to see a photo, they don't have one. They haven't even seen this gorgeous person either, at least not yet. When I ask for her phone number, they don't have it either. They have never spoken to her. They only have some messages written by her, in greek and hebrew, which actually weren't written by her herself but rather another random dude which happens to be dead already.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is the people who have got their nose cut (Emperor's Clothes). The cut-noses want the noses of other people also cut. Other than that, there is no need even to raise the issue. Why should someone tell me that he/she believes in this or that book, this or that savior, and belongs to this or that religion? Did I ask for that? Why should they post long passages repeatedly from what their Shaman said or wrote, when it is apparent that an atheist will not believe it without evidence of which they have none? Are you satisfied with this answer or should I make further effort?

If you didn't ask for it, then you should not have to listen to it. You can simply walk away or say there is nothing productive that will come of telling me this.

I just had this happen last week, when my ex's husband, who is a creationist, was criticizing a relative's decision to go to school for paleontology. He began telling my why it was wrong for him to go and how paleontology goes against what the Bible teaches, and I halted the discussion right there, telling him that his views might be correct for him, but it was unreasonable to expect others to share them. (My ex, who has to make herself a part of every discussion, actually asked in the course of the conversation how there were still monkeys if man came from monkeys .)

How does the posting of another of long passages by their shaman affect you? You're under no obligation to read it. You have a scroll option, a close window option, and a power button. Who does it help if you respond to it in an attempt to discredit the passages?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Because of the equation of sexual and divine love in the OP ─ which seems to me to be a most misdirected simile.

It's an analogy. I don't think he was actually equating sex with divine love.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you didn't ask for it, then you should not have to listen to it. You can simply walk away or say there is nothing productive that will come of telling me this.

How does the posting of another of long passages by their shaman affect you? You're under no obligation to read it. You have a scroll option, a close window option, and a power button. Who does it help if you respond to it in an attempt to discredit the passages?

It depends on a person's temperament, my temperament (varna) is different. Why should I retreat? I reply.
A Vinayaka or a Conscious thoughts will probably retreat.
And if there are no replies, then there will be no forums.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no idea where this is coming from. I never make such an implication.

I know you (guys) didn't directly. By definition, when one side favors another in a complain one side is by definition considered the victim.

So, if one complains about an atheist from an opposite position by nature of that attempt it makes the person's argument the victim.

For example,

They don't stop to thing that people have their own toys that make them just as happy and joyful.

-

They would be considered the victim.

I made the observation when an argument is on favor if one side over another.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It depends on a person's temperament, my tmperament is different. Why should I retreat? I reply. And if there are no replies, then there will be no forums.

So in conclusion, going back to my original question, you're telling me atheists expect theists to recognize they have no proof and realize that they have placed a monumental importance on something that's about as tangible, logical and real in the casual sense of the term as any fairy tale for the benefit of the forum.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I know you (guys) didn't directly. By definition, when one side favors another in a complain one side is by definition considerd the victim.

I wasn't favoring either side.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wasn't favoring either side.

I was going off the quote I sectioned in my reply.

Nothing wrong with it. The majority of that post doesn't address that you took sides though. Just the last sentence based on observation. That wasn't the intent of the whole reply.