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....

[Miles]

Google - "an agnostic atheist doesn't believe but also doesn't think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist." FYI - I would consider myself more of an agnostic atheist, but still find the argument below quite compelling.... (so far)......

Seems as though, for many gnostic 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 denied 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?

A): Because God does not exist

OR

B): Commence countless additional assumptions

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

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

First of all I reject gnostic atheism because it requires knowledge that simply does not exist---the certainty that god doesn't exist. And for pretty much the same reason I reject agnostic atheism with its often claimed position that god's existence is unknowable---another unsupported certainty. I prefer the more common form of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God.

So, NO; Gnostic Atheists are Not Correct, that there is a 100% certainty that god does not exist.

.

[POI]

Google - "an agnostic atheist doesn't believe but also doesn't think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist." FYI - I would consider myself more of an agnostic atheist, but still find the argument below quite compelling.... (so far)......

Seems as though, for many gnostic 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 denied 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?

A): Because God does not exist

OR

B): Commence countless additional assumptions

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

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

First of all I reject gnostic atheism because it requires knowledge that simply does not exist---the certainty that god doesn't exist. And for pretty much the same reason I reject agnostic atheism with its often claimed position that god's existence is unknowable---another unsupported certainty. I prefer the more common form of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God.

So, NO; Gnostic Atheists are Not Correct, that there is a 100% certainty that god does not exist.

.

You are not answering the the debate question(s). They pertain to "divine hiddenness". Are "gnostic atheists" correct, in their argument about divine hiddenness? If not, why not?

[Miles]

Google - "an agnostic atheist doesn't believe but also doesn't think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist." FYI - I would consider myself more of an agnostic atheist, but still find the argument below quite compelling.... (so far)......

Seems as though, for many gnostic 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 denied 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?

A): Because God does not exist

OR

B): Commence countless additional assumptions

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

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

First of all I reject gnostic atheism because it requires knowledge that simply does not exist---the certainty that god doesn't exist. And for pretty much the same reason I reject agnostic atheism with its often claimed position that god's existence is unknowable---another unsupported certainty. I prefer the more common form of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God.

So, NO; Gnostic Atheists are Not Correct, that there is a 100% certainty that god does not exist.

.

You are not answering the the debate question(s). They pertain to "divine hiddenness".

Sorry, but I don't see "divine hiddenness" as being a gnostic atheist go-to topic for debate, or a topic of any atheist, for that matter.

Are "gnostic atheists" correct, in their argument about divine hiddenness? If not, why not?

Their argument? I saw the video as strictly an argument concocted by theists. And I don't see any non-believers thinking the so-called argument from divine hiddenness as strong evidence against god's existence. To me this appears to be more of a phony issue (a straw man, if you like) created by the Capturing Christianity group.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

These Faithbased dismissals are Trump cards, and they aren't - it depends whether it is a discussion intended to convince the Theist (it doesn't, because the theist effectively runs away) or the atheist (it won't because the theist has no rationale, only denial) or the watchers, who will see "I can't validate my case, but I believe it anyway" as no case at all. But for the believer, of course, the discussion will come down to losing their Faith or not, and then it is one of the Trumps - faithbased denial of everything. And yes, they will feel that's a win for them..That's ok. After all atheists do recognise that people can believe what they like, though that is not a pretext to tell atheists to stop debating religion (which is how they use that term - not that it stops them trying to change our minds about what atheists believe) because debates aren't about the other person saying 'You win, I change my mind'. They won't do it. It's about making the best case, and that's why the peanut gallery and lurkers matter and is why I had to find a wider forum.

As to 'agnostic atheist', I don't know whether any such thing exists (as nobody really knows, even if we may think we do) or how the term is used, so I'll watch ans see what others think about that. I could have my mind changed.

[POI]

Sorry, but I don't see "divine hiddenness" as being a gnostic atheist go-to topic for debate, or a topic of any atheist, for that matter.

LOL. Then might I suggest you do what many here do... Scan the topics you deem relevant to actually interact/exchange, for which there are many, and then opt if you would like to do so. Thus far, your comment(s) lend/add nothing to the presented topic of debate here in this thread. But thank you kindly for your opinion, all-the-same.

Their argument? I saw the video as strictly an argument concocted by theists. And I don't see any non-believers thinking the so-called argument from divine hiddenness as strong evidence against god's existence. To me this appears to be more of a phony issue (a straw man, if you like) created by the Capturing Christianity group.

.

Being that "atheism", of all flavors, hinges upon the doubt of God's mere existence, I find the topic of 'divine hiddenness' quite relevant to present against theists. One in which I have found, thus far, theists have little rebuttal against --- (including the attempted theistic rebuttal video in the OP)?.?.?.?

But again, thank you for your given opinion(s)...

[POI]

Hello all. For clarity, I do not want this topic to be about 'what kind of 'atheism' does or does not exist.' The beginning of the post was solely to shed further light on the term in the title itself. Maybe I should alter some stuff, as to not shift the focus or distract from the core debate?

The objective: Is the "atheist's" attack on "divine hiddenness" a worthy 'justification' to doubt/deny/reject/other the Christian God? If not, why not? Thus far, the theist in the video seems to give a quite lame rationale for why God often plays hide-and-go-seek.

It seems to boil down to Occam's Razor. When presented with questions regarding God's absence in finite tragedy, asserting "because there is no Christian God" needs only one assumption. To assert "the Christian God exists and/but...." needs more assumption(s).

[Miles]

Sorry, but I don't see "divine hiddenness" as being a gnostic atheist go-to topic for debate, or a topic of any atheist, for that matter.

LOL. Then might I suggest you do what many here do... Scan the topics you deem relevant to actually interact/exchange, for which there are many, and then opt if you would like to do so. Thus far, your comment(s) lend/add nothing to the presented topic of debate here in this thread. But thank you kindly for your opinion, all-the-same.

Their argument? I saw the video as strictly an argument concocted by theists. And I don't see any non-believers thinking the so-called argument from divine hiddenness as strong evidence against god's existence. To me this appears to be more of a phony issue (a straw man, if you like) created by the Capturing Christianity group.

.

Being that "atheism", of all flavors, hinges upon the doubt of God's mere existence, I find the topic of 'divine hiddenness' quite relevant to present against theists.

Actually, quite a few atheists do more than doubt god's existence, they outright deny it. And those who don't, not only lack doubt, but simply have no reason to put it up for question.

,

[POI]

Sorry, but I don't see "divine hiddenness" as being a gnostic atheist go-to topic for debate, or a topic of any atheist, for that matter.

LOL. Then might I suggest you do what many here do... Scan the topics you deem relevant to actually interact/exchange, for which there are many, and then opt if you would like to do so. Thus far, your comment(s) lend/add nothing to the presented topic of debate here in this thread. But thank you kindly for your opinion, all-the-same.

Their argument? I saw the video as strictly an argument concocted by theists. And I don't see any non-believers thinking the so-called argument from divine hiddenness as strong evidence against god's existence. To me this appears to be more of a phony issue (a straw man, if you like) created by the Capturing Christianity group.

.

Being that "atheism", of all flavors, hinges upon the doubt of God's mere existence, I find the topic of 'divine hiddenness' quite relevant to present against theists.

Actually, quite a few atheists do more than doubt god's existence, they outright deny it. And those who don't, not only lack doubt, but simply have no reason to put it up for question.

,

Still not finding this exchange relevant or fruitful... Allow me to circle it back and present the argument. Note, below is to be presented to the Christian:

- Do you believe in the Christian God? (yes or no)
- Can your god manifest in reality, if He wants to? (yes or no)
- Does your God know what would convince me that He exists? (yes or no)
- Is your God capable of doing such convincing? (yes or no)

Why hasn't it happened for me? You can refer to one of the answers in the video, or select one of your own.

[1213]

...
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?