It took faith for the likes of Einstein and Hawking to dedicate galaxies of intellectual effort to the search for a unifyi field theory; a faith unrewarded in their lifetimes.
That's a different meaning of faith than religious-type faith, which is unfounded and thus unjustified belief. Theoretical scientists have excellent evidence that such efforts occasionally pay great dividends. That's based in evidence, in history, and experience.
I attended an online funeral yesterday and it reminded me of the sense of complete loss that atheists experience at such events. They have nothing to look forward to...no hope.
How would you know what the inner life of an atheist is? Atheists on this thread have already told you that you don't understand them, but that probably isn't important to you. Use your head. If any atheist felt hopeless and wanted the hope of an afterlife, he could turn to religion and see if that helped. As for me, I'm happy outside of religion, and I don't believe the promises of an afterlife. That's not the kind of hope I have, want, or need.
the conclusion that if no one else can prove to you to your satisfaction that God exists, then no gods exist, doesn't raise any red flags?
Straw man. Only strong atheists make that claim, and they are the minority of atheists. You know that, but repeat this falsehood incessantly.
Why would a God want or need to prove anything to anyone? I can't think of a single reason. So why I should expect any proof?
Why should a person care if such a god existed? I don't. Maybe there is some entity somewhere that would fit the description of a god, like the deist god, who is believed to have crated the universe then left it. Why would knowing that matter at all. Even if I knew that it was correct for a fact, still, so what? This is apatheism.
What is absurd is demanding a kind of evidence that you couldn't even identify or validate if you had it, and then proclaiming that your not getting it is supposed mean something.
The atheist demands nothing from the theist. As you note, the theist doesn't have that evidence. The atheist knows this. If there were such evidence, he's know about himself without the help of theists, so why ask them for it? You're misunderstanding what is really being said. It's not, "Where's your evidence?" It's "There is insufficient evidence for an empiricist and critical thinker to believe that gods exist, so I live as if they don't." If you object to that, then you're insecure regarding being disagreed with.
All it means is that those of you demanding it were fools to begin with, for demanding what you couldn't possibly even recognize if you had if.
I don't think you've correctly identified who the fool in this scenario is.
You are only seeing what accords with what you already believe to be true. That's how a closed mind works.
Yes, but that doesn't describe the critical thinker. That describes the confirmation bias that follow when one believes by faith.
What you want is for him to let down his defenses and allow false and unfalsifiable ideas into his world view as the faith-based thinker does. The bias he takes into the process is that that is a foolish thing to do. His mind is always open to evaluating new evidence, but nothing gets past the lobby and into the main library that doesn't pass muster. The open part of the mind is the front door, but ideas aren't getting past the reception desk without proper inspection according to rules that allow one to distinguish correct ideas from other kinds of ideas.
If God were hovering in the air right in front of you, right now, in a "blaze of glory" (whatever that would mean) how would you "falsify" the apparent visitation? How could you prove to yourself or to anyone else that it was actually God, and not some clever alien species appearing to you in a way that it thinks you will better understand? Or perhaps it's a very clever magician's trick intended to prank you. Or perhaps your own mind is playing tricks on you. And already you know that you could not possibly prove that it was God because you already know that no theists could possibly prove their experiences of God, to you.
More reasons to not believe in gods.
That's not a problem with the claims, it's a problem with your way too narrow means of dealing with the claims.
You like to use the word problem in this context, but whenever I've asked you to explain how using this method to discern what is true is a problem, or to demonstrate how you have benefitted from softer, less focused thinking, it's always crickets, so I won't bother to ask you again. I'll tell you. This is another are where I KNOW that you cannot provide any evidence.
And your absurdly biased response when you can't deal with them.
His bias is that he wants to hold only correct ideas, and that critical thinking is the only method that generates them. And he's correct. If he weren't, you would be able to falsify that belief with an example of knowledge arrived at using soft thinking (faith). But you can't. A correct idea cannot be falsified, and a correct idea is one that can be used to anticipate outcomes. Other kinds of ideas just aren't helpful except perhaps to comfort those who can be comforted by them.
I'm not the one claiming that God doesn't exist unless someone can prove to me that it does, and by all my own rules.
No, you're the one repeatedly reproducing this straw man. And you don't seem to mind being seen as unteachable. What do think that does to your arguments about open- and closed-mindedness in others? What do you think that does for your ethos, which includes how people perceive your ability to reason well and your reliability?
You think your method of evaluation is the only possible reasonable, logical method, but it's not.
Yes it is. If it weren't, you could falsify the claim that empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how reality works by producing knowledge derived by another method, but you've demonstrated that you can't.
I can assure you that I am not the least bit angry.
You dislike atheists, you disapprove of them, and you post derogatory comments about them using words like fool and absurd. What's the emotion driving that? If not outright anger, then contempt.
The problem is you continue to misrepresent belief so you can hide behind this silly claim of "unbelief" while you attack other people for theirs. then you try to claim that your atheism is just "unbelief". When it's anything but.
No problem. If it were, you could say and show how. And no misrepresentation. He doesn't believe in gods. Neither do I. And neither of us say that gods don't exist. But you simply cannot or will not assimilate that simple idea. Instead, you see intellectual and character defects in those making such statements and accuse them of lying and hiding their true beliefs, as if they have some reason to hide them from you.
