Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

[PureX]

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.

Even greater is the ideal of faith. Intuition also has it's tole to play. And so does establishing probability. All of which can and do over-ride our skepticism. So I wouldn't make more of it than it is.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not so sure blind hookups are the best venture.

Being "blind" indeed is quite an obstacle on the spiritual path

 

[stvdv]

Knowing there is none, why bother, eh.

Hahaha

 

[PureX]

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 then the atheists jump right into the 'stupid pit' along with them. Pretty much every time. "But Mama, HE did it first!"

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?

"Backed up" how, and according to whom? Theists have their reasoning, and their 'evidence', and they find it compelling. Just like anyone else.

Sorry, the logical default is that any claim or proposition is UNTRUE until the claimant can demonstrate it IS true or likely true.

Well that's patently false, and quite illogical. And yet you don't see this at all. How is that, do you think?

Atheists just point out how theists fail to demonstrate their claims are true.

Sort of like pointing out that one has failed to demonstrate that broccoli tasted good.

 

[stvdv]

Because of the equation of sexual and divine love in the OP

Depends how you read the anecdote; the word sex is not mentioned

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

I think we can, sometimes if not always, if we do not jump ahead with closed eyes.

 

[stvdv]

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.

Creative

Other scenario, but interesting too

 

[stvdv]

I think we can, sometimes if not always, if we do not jump with closed eyes.

Usually better to keep your eyes closed if you prefer a sound, not too distracted mind

 

[stvdv]

This cartoonish depiction of the atheist's position is incorrect

I agree to disagree on this one

We are rational skeptics. We require an empirical reason to believe anything

Seems fair to me

The theist cannot provide one, so we disregard their claims.

Of course you are free to disregard their claims. Still it could be true though

 

[PureX]

But *why* can it not be proven?

'God' transcends all possible criteria of determination, from the limited human perspective.

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

We can't.

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.

All that tells is that people are not omniscient, and never have been. We are not capable of knowing all that is, or is not.

 

[stvdv]

Show me anything that is better explained positing a god, and I will consider it

I don't want or need you to consider it. I am fine if people chose the path of Atheism

 

[stvdv]

Did he?

Yes

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?

Yes, pretty similar indeed

I did not suggest you should believe though (both cases)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never seen atheists demand proof of God, except for those times that various believers claim to have such proof. It has always turned the to be nonexistent. And the only times I have seen peer review demanded is not in discussions of whether God exists or not but in the case of creationists claiming to have proof for creationism. Though many creationists do make the error of thinking that refuting their own personal version of God is a refutation of God.

 

[stvdv]

I notice the argument starts as a person saying there is a guy that can make love to you better. The atheist says, I don't see a guy.

That's a fair reply

Show me

That's from a point of weakness
That shows me the Atheist is not really eager to know
I never ask other people "show me", I try to figure it out my self

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Sounds like someone is feeling a little bit horny, a little bit rejected and a little bit bitter.

You may not understand why your proposition was turned down, but it's important to recognize that it was turned down. No means no, so now you can move on and hit on someone else.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't find certain words in this eternal discussion to be useful. Words like blind, bizarre, stupid, etc. only add to the emotion, and entrenched POVs.

 

[stvdv]

Atheists just point out how theists fail to demonstrate their claims are true.

Sort of like pointing out that one has failed to demonstrate that broccoli tasted good

 

[stvdv]

You may not understand why your proposition was turned down, but it's important to recognize that it was turned down. No means no, so now you can move on and hit on someone else.

Exactly. No, means "I am not open to find out". Which is fine. I say no to many things in my life. Life is too short to say yes to everything.

 

[Heyo]

You missed the point of the OP

Oh, what was the point? I thought you were advocating for gullibility.
When a gorgeous person walks up to me and says she wants to have sex with me and promises it will be the best experience of my life, I react towards her just as I react to a Nigerian prince. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Someone not asking what is wrong with the offer is just as gullible as people who fall for Nigerian princes.

 

[osgart]

How would someone prove consciousness if they did not experience it themselves? No amount of evidence tells you that consciousness is real. God is an argument that relies on proof inferred from evidence. Abstract concepts are only about inferring proof from evidence. Evidence only tells you that an phenomenon exists and how it behaves. Everything else is about proof.

It would help the argument if people realized that physicalism is a metaphysical claim requiring proof. How does an atheist arrive at their proof from evidence that only the physical is real?

That would make the theism vs. atheism debate more equitable.

Then from there we can determine if God has physical properties.