Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

[Vinayaka]

I wasn't favoring either side.

I scroll right through most atheist-theist debate these days, rarely reading much of it at all. Frankly, it's tiring, much like watching two little kids on the playground bickering. I just want to say, 'Grow up and accept neither side has proof or disproof.' The massive overgeneralising and hurling of insults doesn't help. In the realm of belief, that's the way it is.

 

[ChristineM]

Demanding proof for that which cannot be proven is illogical, and disingenuous. And yet the atheist does this constantly, and then imagines that they are being the logical and more honest one. It is just a blind bias, masquerading as logic. The same as when one presents their unfounded god-belief as fact. Neither is being logical, and neither is being honest. Both are lost in their own biased delusion of truth.

Making claims that require proof is far more illogical.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

This ^^^^^

The problem is that the person making the claim doesn't seem to have the evidence either. It isn't that someone is walking up and offering sex. it is that someone is walking up and saying someone else is offering sex and then cannot say anything coherent about that person.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Frankly, it's tiring, much like watching two little kids on the playground bickering.

That is not correct, Vinayaka. Atheist have proof that theists have not come out with a proof all through the human history, they have just talked.

 

[McBell]

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?

When telling them I do not accept their claims merely makes them redouble their efforts, then no, it isn't enough.
In such cases I have absolutely no problem with putting out my back lowering myself way down where theists have left the bar.
That theists hate when others lower themselves down to their bar is their problem, not mine.
Though I do find it extremely comical that they dislike the bed they made for themselves

Don't get me wrong.
I am not saying or even implying that it is all or even most theists.
I am talking only about the ones who redouble their efforts in shoving their beliefs down my throat.
Which in my experience is next to nothing in person.
But is through the roof when they can hide behind a screen.


I answered your last question in post #25

 

[Polymath257]

Demanding proof for that which cannot be proven is illogical, and disingenuous. And yet the atheist does this constantly, and then imagines that they are being the logical and more honest one. It is just a blind bias, masquerading as logic. The same as when one presents their unfounded god-belief as fact. Neither is being logical, and neither is being honest. Both are lost in their own biased delusion of truth.

But *why* can it not be proven? Is it because the claim is false? How can we tell the difference between a truth that cannot be proven and a falsehood?

It seems to me that the admission that it cannot be proven is telling, especially when so many people over time have attempted to prove it and failed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Yeah, it benefits the forum, it makes a forum alive. Claims and and counter-claims. Think of a forum where no one posts for weeks or months. Atheists do not expect any laying down of arms by theists, nor I think the theists have any such expectations from atheists. We make a kill here or there, that is besides the point. It is more like a perpetual war - capitalism and Communism. No side will give up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

This cartoonish depiction of the atheist's position is incorrect. We are rational skeptics. We require an empirical reason to believe anything. The theist cannot provide one, so we disregard their claims.

This vexes them. They don't understand this. They see it as rebellion against their faith-based claims rather than simple rejection of an insufficiently supported claim.

Show me anything that is better explained positing a god, and I will consider it. If you can't, why would the rational skeptic be interested in this hypothesis? It can be used for nothing. It adds no explanatory or predictive power to any idea.

So, yeah, bring me something substantial or bring me nothing.

Skepticism as a bias is indeed irrational.

Skepticism is one of the great ideas man has devised, up there with justice. It converted astrology to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry, and creationism to Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary theory. It overturned kings and their claims of being divinely appointed. It turned theocracies into democracies. It remade the world for the better. Yet you call it irrational and seem to prefer and promote the old school of thought, which was always sterile and a dead end.

Demanding proof for that which cannot be proven is illogical, and disingenuous.

Really? This is an illogical comment from you. Do you believe the horoscopes you see, or do you need more than faith to believe them? The horoscopes cannot be proven. If you reject them, how are you not being illogical by your own definition?

How about Chinese fortune cookies, which is astrology without the cusps and houses? Their predictions can't be proven in advance, either. Do you consider skepticism for them illogical, or is accepting them because you read them more logical to you? I find fortune cookies valuable, but that's because I live in Mexico and am still learning Spanish. Our fortune cookies are bilingual, so I always start with the Spanish side and translate it, then verify that I did it right by turning them over. Otherwise, like all faith-based belief, they're pretty useless except for the "in bed" game, where you add that phrase to the end of your fortune.

The skeptic is no more interested in pronouncements on logic from the faith-based thinker than he is in taking science from the creationist, and for the same reason. Somebody willing to believe by faith what he wants to be true, such as that gods exist, rather than that for which there is compelling evidence, has jumped the shark of rigorous reason.

 

[F1fan]

Demanding proof for that which cannot be proven is illogical, and disingenuous.

Theists claiming they know their God exists despite no evidence they can provide is the error you should be stating. Its not the problem of atheists that theists make irrational and bogus claims they then cannot back up in a debate.

And yet the atheist does this constantly, and then imagines that they are being the logical and more honest one. It is just a blind bias, masquerading as logic.

What are you expecting, that a theist can make a claim they can't back up on a debate forum and get away with it? Theists aren't owed a God damned thing.

The same as when one presents their unfounded god-belief as fact. Neither is being logical, and neither is being honest. Both are lost in their own biased delusion of truth.

Sorry, the logical default is that any claim or proposition is UNTRUE until the claimant can demonstrate it IS true or likely true. Atheists just point out how theists fail to demonstrate their claims are true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten ..

I have problems with this 'smitten' part also. You don't know anything about the person. He could be a robber or she could be a hustler, who would take away your money when you are asleep. People are smitten at a young age. That is why more first marriages fail, because people do not give it a mature consideration. People should not get smitten, but I understand that they do.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Odd.....back when I was single, the existence of
Heaven was never an issue. I had other things
on my mind.
As for proof of its existence, I don't ask for it.
It would be like asking for proof of Hogwarts.
Why bother?

 

[stvdv]

I have recently heard from a Nigerian prince who offered me loads of money

You missed the point of the OP

 

[stvdv]

PureX, I do not mind people having various beliefs. But if some one is trying to prove that his/her is better, then providing proof / evidence is necessary

I totally agree with this

Context: Heading of the topic, although stvdv is a dear friend (of different belief).

 

[Polymath257]

You missed the point of the OP

Did he? it seems pretty similar. In both cases, there is an offer by someone you don't know for something you really want. And there is a claim that it is far better than anything you have had to that point.

Why believe one and not the other?

 

[stvdv]

I think - How much? - is a possible first question, given that £10,000 is probably a no-no but £10 (or nada) a yes-yes if attractive enough and a guarantee of money back if not satisfied was given

Example in the OP was not about money (was anecdotal), just a "free ride" (again in the context of the anecdote)

Whilst for many they will probably have more evidence than most, and a better understanding and/or even ability to process such, mostly it is about how we interpret such evidence as exists or we see in our lives and/or even search out.

I like this

Why, other than personal preference, would any claim to know the answer to the atheist/theist question when it simply isn't obvious? Well not to some of course even if to others.

Good point

 

[stvdv]

expecting a proof of God to arrive.

Indeed, waiting and expecting a proof of God to arrive, might last an eternity

Usually even scientists work hard before 'proof arrives'

 

[stvdv]

I've never seen an atheist walk up to a theist and ask them for proof of God without first having God shoved in their face.

Very true, and this "theist attitude" has caused lots of trouble, the opposite of Love

But when that does happen, I don't see the way they ask at all bizarre.

I agree

I have this approach with practically everything in life. I want to know why things are and how they work.

#MeToo, and number one key for me is Self Effort

 

[stvdv]

As for proof of its existence, I don't ask for it

An Atheist "not asking for proof" makes sense to me, I never ask for proof myself

 

[stvdv]

I have problems with this 'smitten' part also

We can't control our emotions always, can we?

 

[Revoltingest]

An Atheist "not asking for proof" makes sense to me, I never ask for proof myself

Knowing there is none, why bother, eh.