Rehash god/proof debate

[Brian2]

Atheism is not a decision. Religion is a decision. Atheism is a lack of decision; a persistence of the original blank slate.

It required the rejection of the evidence for a God. It is a decision just as my decision that the flying spaghetti monster is not true is would be more than a lack of belief if someone came along with some evidence for a flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Brian2]

Fair enough. I don't agree.

I like that icon.
And I apologise in advance if that is offensive in some way.

 

[Valjean]

Why would a nonbeliever want proof for god?

Apparently unbelievers are more curious than believers.

Why would anyone want to know anything? Why would I want to know about Afghanistan or mask requirements in schools, or what Boris Johnson's up to? I'm neither Afghan, British, or a student.

Religion is a massive force in the world, affecting politics, social behavior; human psychology, actions and interpersonal relationships. Why wouldn't everyone want to know about it?

 

[Valjean]

It required the rejection of the evidence for a God. It is a decision just as my decision that the flying spaghetti monster is not true is would be more than a lack of belief if someone came along with some evidence for a flying spaghetti monster.

Yet noöne has come up with any evidence of God, at least, no real, empirical evidence; nothing testable, or predictive.
Yes, there's a lot of talk of prophesies, miracles, design, complexity, &al, but these arguments are unevidenced, illogical, or unreasonable. They've all been debunked, falsified, or shown to be baseless.

Show us some real evidence and we'll consider it. Show us hearsay, folklore, logical and analytic errors, or outright falsehoods, and we'll reject it.

 

[Valjean]

It required the rejection of the evidence for a God. It is a decision just as my decision that the flying spaghetti monster is not true is would be more than a lack of belief if someone came along with some evidence for a flying spaghetti monster.

No, a six month old atheist does not reject anything, except maybe his creamed broccoli. My atheist cat has never heard of any evidence for God.

A lack of belief does not presuppose rejection of another belief, or even awareness of it. A lack of belief in God, the FSM, leprechauns or herds of pink unicorns roaming the dark side of the Moon requires no awareness of any claims or evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Yet noöne has come up with any evidence of God, at least, no real, empirical evidence; nothing testable, or predictive.
Yes, there's a lot of talk of prophesies, miracles, design, complexity, &al, but these arguments are unevidenced, illogical, or unreasonable. They've all been debunked, falsified, or shown to be baseless.

Show us some real evidence and we'll consider it. Show us hearsay, folklore, logical and analytic errors, or outright falsehoods, and we'll reject it.

So you reject the evidence for God without considering it according to you, but also say that the evidence has been considered. What is it? Has the evidence been considered and rejected or not?
If it has then your atheism is a decision to not believe and not just a lack of belief.
It does not matter if you want to call the evidence BS or not, that is a moot point.

 

[Brian2]

No, a six month old atheist does not reject anything, except maybe his creamed broccoli. My atheist cat has never heard of any evidence for God.

A lack of belief does not presuppose rejection of another belief, or even awareness of it. A lack of belief in God, the FSM, leprechauns or herds of pink unicorns roaming the dark side of the Moon requires no awareness of any claims or evidence.

I'm not talking about a 6 month old or a cat. They are blank slates but you have decided to be a blank slate. A choice. A belief.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not talking about a 6 month old or a cat. They are blank slates but you have decided to be a blank slate. A choice. A belief.

No. I was born a blank slate, and have changed nothing. If I make no decisions and reject nothing, I remain a blank slate.
Atheism is not rejection, it's lack.

 

[Valjean]

So you reject the evidence for God without considering it according to you, but also say that the evidence has been considered. What is it? Has the evidence been considered and rejected or not?

The purported evidence has been considered, and discovered not to be evidence.

If it has then your atheism is a decision to not believe and not just a lack of belief.
It does not matter if you want to call the evidence BS or not, that is a moot point.

What matters; what determines a valid conclusion, is the truth of the evidence and the logic of the argument.

 

[Brian2]

The purported evidence has been considered, and discovered not to be evidence.
What matters; what determines a valid conclusion, is the truth of the evidence and the logic of the argument.

IMO what matters is to not reject the voice of God drawing you to Jesus. Logic can be tainted to bend in a certain direction and evidence can be twisted to make it not look like evidence. The logic says "look at the conclusions of most of the modern scholars, they must be right, I want something more before I go the way of faith".

 

[Valjean]

IMO what matters is to not reject the voice of God drawing you to Jesus. Logic can be tainted to bend in a certain direction and evidence can be twisted to make it not look like evidence. The logic says "look at the conclusions of most of the modern scholars, they must be right, I want something more before I go the way of faith".

But what "voice of God" is this? Most people don't hear voices, and those that do are as likely to be Muslim, Hindu or some other religion. These voices are usually post hoc, they're usually heard by those who already believe. Finally, they don't seem to agree on the message.