Do Atheists Have a Solid Case Here?

[POI]

For many atheists, the go-to topic for debate, is "divine hiddenness". I do not see it spoke about much here? I figured it would be worthy of discussion. Below is a theist's response/rebuttal to the argument:



For Debate:

1. In claim #1, the theist states Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus have their requests ultimately fulfilled at a later date. Why do countless victims of rape, torture, AND murder go unfulfilled in their requests to be saved?

2. In claim #2, the theist states hiddenness does seem to promote a relationship in the long run. This is clearly not the case, as many will die as atheists -- (likely me, unless He is going to reveal Himself to me later in a way for which I will not doubt His mere existence).

3. In claim #3, God remains hidden from the ones who would rebel. I guess this means if I never feel I received His presence, then that means I would have rebelled anyways? Well then, should I ignore the Bible, where He presented Himself to many who reject Him then?

I'll stop here... The theist mentions other stuff, but nothing seemingly worthy of intellectual discussion.

I hope you theists can come up with BETTER reasons than the ones given in the video?

Or, in conclusion, apply Occam's Razor for the following question: Why doesn't God intervene, when prayed upon, where ultimate finite tragedy strikes?

A): Because God does not exist... One assumption

OR

B): God does exist, but.... Commence additional assumptions

******************************

A) needs only one assumption, B) needs more....

[1213]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

[Tcg]

...
1. In claim #1, the theist states Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus have their requests ultimately fulfilled at a later date. Why do countless victims of rape, torture, AND murder go unfulfilled in their requests to be saved?
...

Why you assume their request is unfulfilled? Is this just hypothetical question, or can you show examples of cases with unfulfilled requests?

That's easy to answer. Because they got raped, tortured, and murdered.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

..I hate to point out what has been said before but it isn't all about your and your Faith. It is about what you can validate for others. If you can't present a valid evidence and logic based case, then you lose, even if you tell yourself that clinging to your Faith is a Win.

Sorry folks, I know it's not about 'winning' but that's the only way to see who made the valid case -presentation. "I don't care what you say..I still believe..." is not a debate (or discussion) winner.

[Tcg]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

..I hate to point out what has been said before but it isn't all about your and your Faith. It is about what you can validate for others. If you can't present a valid evidence and logic based case, then you lose, even if you tell yourself that clinging to your Faith is a Win.

Sorry folks, I know it's not about 'winning' but that's the only way to see who made the valid case -presentation. "I don't care what you say..I still believe..." is not a debate (or discussion) winner.

Right. To start a reply with "For me", is to admit that one has no evidence to present to others. The debate has not only been lost, it hasn't even started. Oh, and the failed attempt to shift the burden of proof should be noted. Yet another debate failure.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

..I hate to point out what has been said before but it isn't all about your and your Faith. It is about what you can validate for others. If you can't present a valid evidence and logic based case, then you lose, even if you tell yourself that clinging to your Faith is a Win.

Sorry folks, I know it's not about 'winning' but that's the only way to see who made the valid case -presentation. "I don't care what you say..I still believe..." is not a debate (or discussion) winner.

Right. To start a reply with "For me", is to admit that one has no evidence to present to others. The debate has not only been lost, it hasn't even started. Oh, and the failed attempt to shift the burden of proof should be noted. Yet another debate failure.


Tcg

Correct. Where the Burden of proof lies is at the bottom of this and that (of course, and as I have said before) is based on A priori godfaith. God is Real, and therefore, the Bible and everything in it and also the Faith is the default to start with and the burden of proof falls on the atheist in everything. Or so they think) All they have to do is dismiss everything and maintain their Faith and they win....according to them. Of course in the case of the Bible, the unbelievers have a job of work and there the True Believers can (as we see every time) dismiss the evidence and say "I'm not convinced" and they reckon that's a Win.

But it isn't.

The Holistic thing. The Christian doctrines are shockingly prevalent in public consciousness (1) from the Magi and shepherds in the stable together (they were evidently 2 years apart, which is why Herod asked when the star appeared and then targets 2 year olds) to denial of Abiogenesis, no matter that the evidence all points to a natural origin of Life and the Goddunnit case has nothing but "Sorry, I don't buy that". Which is what we see here, and pretty much everywhere in Theist apologetics, sooner or later.

The task is to debunk the usual apologetics, let the atheists learn the debunks, get the debunks into the public psyche, so they will see through the poor Theist defence, they will not be fooled and will laugh and feel smart. If that happens, the Bible and Christianity is finished as a socially dominant power and election -winner, I guarantee it.

Ps. Godfaith is demonstrably the basis for this 'logic', but I have a Theory ..that Faith is based on a personal conviction that God is downloading Truth into their heads, so they KNOW they are right, no matter what the evidence says. cue flat earthism...but I'll save it

(1) "...Stellar PR ..." (Tracie Harriss)

[POI]

...
Your response merely places forth an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition. Mine is testable, yours is not. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of "Heaven", for starters.

And it you can't prove it wrong, it is possible God saved those and your claim that God doesn't save is baseless.

You have left out virtually everything I have said. The sentences, immediately before the one you selected to respond, states the following: "Your response merely places forth an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition. Mine is testable, yours is not.". I take it you have no objection with them. Otherwise, you might have responded to them.

Further, your given response can equally be said of any unfalsifiable assertion. I trust I do not need to explain what unfalsifiable means? If not, please look up the definition of "Russell's Teapot". You are asking me to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

Further. you look to be avoiding virtually everything else I've brought forth in the last response. Ignoring these points demonstrates, thus far, that you likely do not have a rebuttal. I will repeat them once more, in the hopes you will address this time around

When applying Occam's Razor, and such hypothetical questions are put forth, the answer which requires the least amount of assumptions, is to be preferred. I guess I do not need to tell you, but option A) needs lesser assumption(s) (i.e.):

A) The Biblical God does not exist
B) The Biblical God does exist, but....

If I select A), I need only one assumption to answer the question ----> The Biblical God does not exist

If I select B), I need a minimum of two assumptions, maybe more....

My assumption concludes that there exists no god present to entertain requests.

**************************************************************

Please answer the question in red:

Please select A) or B):

Many victims of rape/torture/murder, who pray to no longer be raped/tortured/murdered, go unfulfilled because A) or B)?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
1. In claim #1, the theist states Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus have their requests ultimately fulfilled at a later date. Why do countless victims of rape, torture, AND murder go unfulfilled in their requests to be saved?
...

Why you assume their request is unfulfilled? Is this just hypothetical question, or can you show examples of cases with unfulfilled requests?

I suppose that it's like the rebuttal to 'Prayer works'. We know it doesn't and the believers know it doesn't, as they have to alter the parameters of what 'answered prayer' means. So unfulfilled requests to be saved is something we are all sure happens. We know that, despite the claims of miraculous one person out of fifty gets saved and the other don't, some people who must have prayed to be saved, don't get saved. we have heard the arguments - he's stuck in a wheelchair with a trashed spine for the rest of his life 'well he's still alive'. And if they all praye for the operation to be successful and it isn't 'It was just his time'. That is the world does not grant our appeals for salvation, answered prayer or to win a football game. The parameters of answered prayer or fulfilled requests to be saved have to be altered to excuse the fact that everyone seems to know - that the world doesn't work that way.

[brunumb]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

And if we don't know, it is also a baseless claim that God did anything. Your faith is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is not a logical question. The Logical question is, how do you know they were?...

For me it is enough to show we don't know, which is why it is baseless claim that God didn't save.

And if we don't know, it is also a baseless claim that God did anything. Your faith is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

And it is, of course, based on this idea that denial of everything leaves them with a case of 'My belief is as valid as yours'. This is basic, and is founded on a Faith that they are right in their Beliefs and thus evidence can just be dismissed leaving them with an equally good case as counter to the materialist/scientific atheist case. That is not the logical way that it works, but they always think that it is. it explains this basic of special pleading, why alternative logical entities are ignored or dismissed out of hand, why more probable explanations are disregarded in favour of far - fetched 'undisprovables' (and why appeal to unknownsis thought a valid argument) and why they can use (science) evidence (never mind fiddling it) when it suits their argument, but say that science can be wrong when it doesn't. No question of science being wrong when it supports their Belief. Because it's the belief that validates the science, not the other way around.

Once the Faithbased mindset is understood, all the cognitive dissonance becomes understandable.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29]

I'm sorry but I see no good reason to believe any of that.