Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 304 by ytrewq]

Don't think others will help you get your chops out of the frying pan.

[Danmark]

To me I see this thread as just another case of confirming God does not exist because if he did then he would let everyone know he does and even buy them a Lamborghini or set them up in a castle. Why he may even put them back into paradise. Oh well he does not do it for his faithful followers so why worry about the rest who use some intricate arguments to boost their belief that he can be equated to unicorns, leprechauns or fairies.

[ emphasis applied]

Huh? This thread simply states we can infer the Biblical God does not exist because the Bible provides no evidence of his existence that appeals to science, or to those who look to science for evidence. Additionally, the Bible tells stories and make claims that contradict what we know about the natural world.

Where you get magic castles out of this thread is beyond me. No one has asserted that argument.

Also, no one is equating this fictional character with other fictional characters, except to say the scientific evidence for each imaginary character is the same: ZERO.

[Danmark]

Stop carrying on like a pork chop.

Moderator Comment
This has to be the mildest personal attack yet. Not sure it's worth a comment even, but it does not advance the argument and it is personal. Now I have to try to picture how a pork chop "carries on."
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 298 by Theunis]

Moderator Comment

The objective in this Forum is to debate ideas and issues NOT the personal characteristics or style of other debaters. Kindly refrain from making personal comments AND refrain from making one-line comments.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Theunis]

[Replying to Danmark]

The castles is more a figure of speech derived from a song - They say a mans home is his castle. Well home is where the hearth is. (note not heart but hearth). That place where you feel warm and comfortable. In the company of atheists an atheist gets that feeling and the same applies to Christians etc.

The equating is just another way to say because one cannot prove or disprove it he appears to be fiction. The leprechauns etc was taken from that moribund forum I mentioned where it was in constant use and similar voicings by atheists on various sites and articles on the internet . Their main theme is - If you believe god exists then you will also believe leprechauns, unicorns and fairies exist.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to FarWanderer]
If you say I am hitting you with a stick of "your head in the sand" when I referred to the hearing deaf, then all I can say is if the shoe fits then wear it. But you missed the points I made. My spiel was 100% on the mark even if you do not accept it to be so..

Me: -

I think that atheist were the first to say God does not exist and then shifted the burden of proof onto those who say he does. Although it is my opinion you cannot prove it to be wrong and by merely saying prove it, the implication is you don't believe me and so saying cast aspersions on my integrity but that is not enough so you add I am suffering from a delusion, superstition etc, thus the immediate burden of proof, in a most concrete and material form mind you, (big smile) is yours and until you can prove what you say about me there is no need for me to prove anything.

Now who was complaining? It was merely stressing a point regarding proving something. Didn't you notice (big smile) ?

Everyone seems to be missing the crux of the matter which is why doesn't God do this or that when those who are moaning about it are the ones who says he does not exist.

To me I see this thread as just another case of confirming God does not exist because if he did then he would let everyone know he does and even buy them a Lamborghini or set them up in a castle. Why he may even put them back into paradise. Oh well he does not do it for his faithful followers so why worry about the rest who use some intricate arguments to boost their belief that he can be equated to unicorns, leprechauns or fairies.
Remember the Christian bible does not say he will come to you it says - come to me and I will give you peace and rest.

Using logic and analogies to represent life as it is, is useless for I perceive the fatal "I have made up my mind" wall. So I say let the atheists whistle as they work in their castles and let the religionists sing and hum in their castle while life and the world passes them by,
If their fanatics wish to war against each other only the rubble and dust of what was once theirs will remain.

Atheists say God does not exist so why do they cry he does not recognize them? This was the theme of my argument. Of course the story remains that it is merely another one of their arguments to attempt to prove he does not exist.
It is exactly like the Christians attributing human things to the unexplained and imponderable and wanting to see "THE MAN".

Look, don't worry about it too much. You just missed it. Don't get down about it.

This thread was about a specific point of view. It's very simple. You can discuss the question or you can run off on tangents and refuse to admit when a point has been landed on the grid representing your positions.

Assuming god punishes those who don't believe in him, why won't he convince those who would be convinced by logic?

It's a thought experiment. You don't have to play the science if it makes you nervous, ya know.

[Zzyzx]

.

Assuming god punishes those who don't believe in him, why won't he convince those who would be convinced by logic?

Logic and reasoning do not seem to be characteristics of the God depicted in the bible. Perhaps they are missing in "his" makeup?

Force and intimidation (or worse) are associated with the bible God -- not reasoning.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to FarWanderer]
If you say I am hitting you with a stick of "your head in the sand" when I referred to the hearing deaf, then all I can say is if the shoe fits then wear it.

No. The "hearing deaf" part is different. I'm taking issue with what you said specifically about me not listening to you:

You said "The answer to what you said and the question raised in this thread is contained in what I have said in the foregoing paragraphs which unfortunately you do not wish to hear". Emphasis added.

But you missed the points I made. My spiel was 100% on the mark even if you do not accept it to be so.

I haven't just not accepted it, I provided specific reasons why I don't, which you are ignoring. Are you here to debate, or to preach?

Me: -

I think that atheist were the first to say God does not exist and then shifted the burden of proof onto those who say he does. Although it is my opinion you cannot prove it to be wrong and by merely saying prove it, the implication is you don't believe me and so saying cast aspersions on my integrity but that is not enough so you add I am suffering from a delusion, superstition etc, thus the immediate burden of proof, in a most concrete and material form mind you, (big smile) is yours and until you can prove what you say about me there is no need for me to prove anything.

Now who was complaining? It was merely stressing a point regarding proving something. Didn't you notice (big smile) ?

I can't imagine any intellectually honest person being happy to be misunderstood.

In any case, I chose to characterize your claim as I did with understanding.

You are on a debate site, and you are complaining about people challenging claims! And you say that a challenge to a claim implies an accusation of being delusional.

Everyone seems to be missing the crux of the matter which is why doesn't God do this or that when those who are moaning about it are the ones who says he does not exist.

Who is "moaning"? We're just "stressing a point" regarding God's logical coherence.

Using logic and analogies to represent life as it is, is useless for I perceive the fatal "I have made up my mind" wall.

Such walls do exist, but if you always blame a rejection of your claims on walls, then it's actually you who has refused to self-examine; it's you who's put up a wall.

So I say let the atheists whistle as they work in their castles and let the religionists sing and hum in their castle while life and the world passes them by,
If their fanatics wish to war against each other only the rubble and dust of what was once theirs will remain.

Theists and non-theists live in the same world, you know. "Live and let live" is not an option.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

The castles is more a figure of speech derived from a song - They say a mans home is his castle. Well home is where the hearth is. (note not heart but hearth). That place where you feel warm and comfortable. In the company of atheists an atheist gets that feeling and the same applies to Christians etc.

The equating is just another way to say because one cannot prove or disprove it he appears to be fiction. The leprechauns etc was taken from that moribund forum I mentioned where it was in constant use and similar voicings by atheists on various sites and articles on the internet . Their main theme is - If you believe god exists then you will also believe leprechauns, unicorns and fairies exist.

I understand your point, but MY argument, is definitely not "If you believe god exists then you will also believe leprechauns, unicorns and fairies exist." Rather it is a complaint/argument that the justification for believing in god is not fundamentally different from believing in "leprechauns, unicorns and fairies" from an epistemological POV. Is this a fair distinction?

[Theunis]

[Replying to FarWanderer]

Theists and non-theists live in the same world, you know. "Live and let live" is not an option.

This is a most horrible thing that you have now said. So if live and let live is not an option who are you going to drop your a-bombs on, or how are you going to go to work to eradicate all who do not agree with you. I am sure this is only your thoughts and not the thoughts of atheists in general although there are some atheists who say this world would be better without religion but they offer nothing to replace the vacuum except saying they know better. When does one realize that their rational has become irrational?

I am of good mind that because of what you have said to place you in Coventry.

Back to Ignore - Read the definition once again to see the full wording and not just that which you preferred to isolate.
Moaning - Well it is the same as complaints and it is a fact that asking question of why can't or wont someone acknowledge me and then being somewhat derogative say if he has all that power and doesn't do what one thinks he should do while one has already decided he does not exist and has thus turned the deaf ear to any argument.
What then is the real purpose of asking a question of why he does or doesn't do things. Is it that the questions are raised because the questioner thinks that God exists or is it the thought that to whom the question is put is privy to the thoughts of their God?
It is akin to complaining (moaning and groaning) that you are being left out of things that others have and you don't have. Then again your mental wall may be so high that the rush of the wind over its top impedes your hearing and you cannot nor wish to see what is on the other side. So back to - there are none as deaf/blind as those who do not wish to hear/see. There is nothing personal intended it is a saying but it also goes with the story of - it the shoe fits then wear it.

If you read the bible then it is quite obvious that the God of Abraham left this earth and took Jesus with him. I am leaving but will leave the "Holy Ghost/Spirit" behind to guide you. Hey now does a spirit have vocal cords?
Who, if you say prove it but don't use the bible to do so, will say it is easy to prove - show me where he is on this earth! Well the proof is in your own words for you say there is no evidence that he now exists or existed and in the same breath you cannot prove he did not exist.

This leads to the following - If someone believes God exists then let us look at the definition of falsifiable -

falsifiable
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable

So we are left with the opinion of who is correct or wrong. Whoever claims to be right is exhibiting their arrogance and also basing it on the old "I know better" or "I have made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts.
Can you falsify a Christians belief that god spoke to him/her?

Your objections and retorts are noted but I do not consider them to be on target for there is a twist or your own colouration to almost everything I said.

what I have said about this subject of hearing a voice is that one believes as he wishes. Once again -
1. Some may say it is God's voice they hear.
2. Others may say it is the "Holy spirit"
3. Others may say it is their conscience and
4. Others may say it is their sub-conscious.
To this I could add etc. etc. If it works for them then it works for them and who are You or I to tell them it is a big pot of nonsense.

I have not said God does this or that, I asked if you don't believe someone's god exists how then can one ask a question of why he doesn't do this or that.
Atheist:
A. If god could talk to me then god exists.
B. god does not talk to me
C. Therefor god does not exist
Theists:
A. If god could talk to me then God exists.
B. I hear a voice. It is god's voice talking to me
C. Therefor god exists

Tell me if I were to now declare you a non-person and ignore you and place you in Coventry and say you do not exist, will you then come running up to me and say "hi" it is me and will I acknowledge you? This is the type of argument I endeavoured to get across but when some have made up their minds then it is their wall and not mine.