atheist requires proof. It is and will be easier for them to believe in Aliens / extraterrestrials as the world calls and view them as now than to believe in a supernatural being / beings who created this universe and life on this Earth and is referred to as God
Yes, and that is appropriate. If we had evidence of a superhuman presence, extraterrestrials who arose naturalistically within the universe are more likely to be the explanation than supernatural deities according to Occam's parsimony principle, since that hypothesis only requires that nature exists, whereas the other requires other realities exist as well.
Why atheists cannot see what is so obvious to almost everyone in the world is beyond my comprehension.
I think you have it backward. The unprepared mind can't see what critical thought reveals.
Critical thinkers have developed a better way of seeing. Most of the world are unskilled at that, and most are unaware that such a thing exists or what it can do, so their opinions are of little value to those who do. You used the expression "garbage in, garbage out," which accurately describes all other thinking about what is true about the world. These other people aren't properly applying the rules of evidence. You aren't every time you claim that the writings of the messengers are good evidence of a god. No, they're not, but then you aren't using the same rules of inference as the trained logician, so whatever conclusions you come to about those messages will be unsound.
It's exactly analogous to addition. There are rigid rules of inference that generate correct sums every time if properly applied, and if you use any other method - if it deviates even by one rule - say, change 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 - then the process fails, and garbage out obtains. Faith gives us permission to make these changes and believe the results, hence a world of theists.
Whenever we discuss God we are assuming the existence of God, even if we do not 'believe' in God.
Disagree. You seem to be saying that we can't conceive of something without it existing. That might be correct in your case, especially regarding the existence of gods, which you seem to have trouble discussing in the hypothetical. Your conditional comments (If ...) have a shelf life of about one sentence before immediately collapsing into assertions that assume that god's existence.
If God existed and could do x and we have never seen x that means that if God exists, God has never chosen to do x.
I don't think anybody is disputing that claim. What they dispute is that you assume that this god exists, and call that absence of evidence evidence for a god who behaves that way.
The Bible is evidence fro God since it was inspired by God.
Not to a critical thinker. To him, the Bible is evidence that it was written and not much else. It's not evidence that anything in it is correct, nor even that what was written was believed by the writers, much less that a god exists.
Unless you can prove that they ARE NOT the evidence for God that God has provided, that is only your personal opinion, just as it s only my belief that they ARE evidence.
There is no need to disprove the claims of messengers to reject them. Like you say, they're only the messenger's personal opinion, and not convincing.
The religious teachings contradict each other because the scriptures of the older religions have been misinterpreted and distorted my man over time.
If those words were ever valid, they still are. They haven't changed. What you are saying is that YOUR religion is the arbiter of what beliefs in these other religions are misinterpretations, probably wherever they contradict what you believe.
we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything. However, we can make choices because otherwise we would just be pre-programmed robots.
We probably are robots. There is no evidence that we are the authors of our wills. Our brains are, and their circuits deliver imperatives to consciousness which, as best we can tell, the self-aware self has no choice but to obey.
As I said in a prior post, the evidence for the Messengers is objective.
Nobody questions that people calling themselves messengers for a god exist. The evidence for that is compelling even if the messages aren't.
God allows human free will but God does not desire what some people do with it.
Pretty poor plan. Of course, you don't go from evidence to conclusion. You go from faith-based premise to evidence, which always supports your beliefs according to private, tortured reasoning. So for you, it is a given that whatever happens is part of an extremely wise plan.
I meant that there is no objective evidence of God, since God can never be observed. I did not mean that there is no objective evidence for God.
Same thing to me. I'm trying to understand your words in a way that makes them make sense - what distinction you imagine exists between those two phrases that evidence could be one and not the other. Maybe you mean no direct evidence of a god like a visible face by "of God" but that indirect evidence like messages is "for God." If so, that's a distinction I don't make except to say that you have one but not the other, and the one you have doesn't support the conclusions you believe it does.
Omnipotent and omniscient does not imply responsibility. Humans are responsible for themselves.
Those are your values, or as you are fond of saying, "just your opinion" - not those of the humanist. Imagine a mother taking that attitude about her young children.
What's the use of the god you describe? It's indistinguishable from nonexistent, so why should anyone care whether it exists or not?