Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Nice deflection, but your position is intellectually indefensible. Disproving evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
You claim there is no God, but there is no evidence (that there is no God); therefore, you believe that by faith (like believers).
There is no proof of God’s nonexistence, thank God.
Demanding proof of God would require that a person know all evidence of the existence of God and know ALL things. One would have to be in all places of our huge universe. If you could do that, A Sniper, YOU would be God.
Even IF you had good, hard evidence, your scientism and intellectual ego would not allow you to accept it.
Plus, your existing presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of our glorious supreme God.
In order for you to accept ANY evidence, you have to change your presuppositional base that there is no God. And therein lies the problems with atheists. Quite the sad conundrum it is for you folks.
You would need a major shift in your belief system and remove your presuppositional hostility and arrogance to any evidence for the existence of our Almighty God.
The only true god in an atheist’s world is the atheist.
P.S. You really must work on that smug intellectual arrogance. It gives atheists a bad rap.
Nope.
I claim that no theist has met their burden of proof.
That's not the same think and claiming there is no god.
Additionally, read my posts more carefully. I don't ask for proof. I ask for good evidence.
Asking for "proof" can in and of itself be a "Red Herring" fallacy, because it's often used in a way that implies "proof beyond doubt".
Heck even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is not god(s) beyond a shadow of a doubt. On a scale of 1 to 7 he claims to be 6.5 on his level of certainty that no god(s) exist.
There's also a few dishonest tactics theist tend to use in conjunction with to what you are trying to do, i.e. "shifting the burden of proof". Next they will "move the goal posts", by changing their definition of god(s). Consequently it's important to carefully define any god before one can take up the anti-theist position that a specific god does not exist.
As for the initial state of my presuppositions, once again you are totally wrong. My Journey began with 1st Peter 3:15:
3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Unfortunately I could find no evidence that met scrutiny. I was promised much but in the end, those who claimed to have evidence abandoned their claims of evidence and plead their case on the basis of Faith, which we see in this thread as well.
But if you have some real evidence (notice I did not say "proof") let's here it. I'm open to hear what you believe and why you belief it, and why you belief your claims meet their burden of proof.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
