[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

[Sherlock Holmes]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

 

[Lisa]

There is absolutely no empirical objective evidence for a creator deity existing that can be tested and proven by someone regardless of faith or religious belief. All supposed evidence of any god is based on faith and the religious belief of the person making the claim.

That is why I am a Humanist and I didn't waffle on anything and I wasnt afraid to answer it.

 

[Redress]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?

Entirely irrelevant to my thought processes. I simply do not care.

2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?

Again, why would I care?

3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?

Your question is redundant. I just told you my thoughts on it.

4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?

Why do you think this has anything at all to do with atheism? Not being a theist does not require being an anti-theist.

5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?

Why would I look? Why would I care?

6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

Why would I give two shits about your feelings? If you need people to hug you before you are willing to provide any evidence, that is your problem.

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

That people do not answer things as you want is not an issue to anyone but you.

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Yeah, it is all everyone else's fault you cannot persuade them...

 

[bongsaway]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

My process is ten years of catholic school which convinced me there is no god.
If you're using the 'bible' as evidence, I completely reject it.

 

[Lisa]

My process is ten years of catholic school which convinced me there is no god.
If you're using the 'bible' as evidence, I completely reject it.

The bible is only a claim so it cannot also be used as evidence of that claim. That would be circular logic.

 

[bongsaway]

The bible is only a claim so it cannot also be used as evidence of that claim. That would be circular logic.

My favorite when I attended catholic school many decades ago was 'blind faith'. You know the kind where your buddy jumps off a bridge and tells you it's fine come on down. I failed religion in ninth grade. Why? Because I asked too many questions. By then I was completely turned off by catholicism,

 

[SkyChief]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?

I don't believe in God, so naturally I wouldn't have any process for evaluating evidence.

I don't believe in hygtraploks either. So if there WAS evidence of a hygtraplok, I would have no process to evaluate it.

2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?

No.

3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?

N/A

4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?

N/A

5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?

I make no claims about God. If a God exists, then he/she/it presumably doesn't want me to know - - otherwise he/she/it would have revealed him/her/itself to me.

6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I would not accept special pleading logical fallacies. e.g. "You cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore God must exist." or "The complexity of the eye cannot happen by chance. Ergo, there must be a Designer and Creator."

 

[Lisa]

My favorite when I attended catholic school many decades ago was 'blind faith'. You know the kind where your buddy jumps off a bridge and tells you it's fine come on down. I failed religion in ninth grade. Why? Because I asked too many questions. By then I was completely turned off by catholicism,

I was raised Catholic but I only went to CCD on Sunday night or Monday afternoon after public school. I asked too many inconvenient questions that were supposed to be answered by faith and belief. Those nuns sent so many letters home to my mother about my lack of faith and my demands for logical answers that I could have sworn that they were pen-pals. I only had to attend mass until I was 18 and then it was my choice. I was a C&E catholic for about 5 years until the priest pedophile scandal broke and then I left. I'll be darned if I am going to feel guilty about not going to mass every Sunday, even in college when those silk-robed priests would condemn me for supporting equal rights while they defended their perverted co-workers.

 

[Dragonfly]

@Sherlock Holmes

1) how many times are you gonna ask the same questions

2) how many ways are you going to reword the same questions and then re-ask them

3) when are you going to admit you got nothing

4) when are you going to admit your entire philosophy in this is “god of the gaps” and nothing more

5) how’s life treating you otherwise? all good?

 

[noonereal]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Why do you make the false claim in the thread cap that atheists are afraid to answer these trite questions?

Just exactly who, specifically, is afraid to answer these schoolyard questions?

BTW, as there is NO evidence for God, all your questions are but a fallacy. Color me shocked.

 

[noonereal]

@Sherlock Holmes

1) how many times are you gonna ask the same questions

2) how many ways are you going to reword the same questions and then re-ask them

3) when are you going to admit you got nothing

4) when are you going to admit your entire philosophy in this is “god if the gaps” and nothing more

5) how’s life treating you otherwise? all good?

So ridiculous.

Religion should be treated like the gays in the military were. Don't ask don't tell.

Let gays out of the closet, put religious nuts in.

They need to keep that shit out of my neighborhood.

 

[tecoyah]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
My process is based on which "God" I evaluate as there are many differing versions. For the Christian one (which I assume you ask about) I use the books that claim to be accurate data on it.
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
See Above.
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
I just Did but you wont see it.
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?.
As you are the one making a claim it is your responsibility to explain it
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
I have the means to evaluate it as explained.
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?
Evidence will be evaluated as described unless new data is presented, that would be separately considered.

 

[Arlette]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Present some evidence for the existence of God that can be evaluated

 

[noonereal]

Present some evidence for the existence of God that can be evaluated

Now you went and did it!

 

[Lursa]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Wow, I'm a Christian and I dont need the answers to those questions. I cant speak for other religions but Christians are supposed to believe in God on faith. If He wanted to provide proof of His Existence, He could have. He chose to judge us by our faith in and obedience to His Word.

Anyone that needs 'proof' beyond His Word has weak faith, needing substance to prop up the spirit.

So it's silly to wonder why atheists would be concerned about proof...and also bizarre why it's so important to some Christians to prove His Existence to them!

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

I honestly have no idea what you are complaining about. Atheists say they believe there is no god without claiming you must deny God's existence to be a rational person. People can be rational whether they believe in God or not There are irrational people who say a god does exist too.

What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?

This is only a good question if you know the atheist looked for evidence of a god and could not find it.

How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?

When I look at the sky, all I see is the weather. I never hear a male voice coming from above. I never see angels, even from 32,000 feet.

The physical world is all science. No cardiologist can look at someone's heart and claim to have seen, felt, or heard the Holy Spirit in it.

Without being able to perceive any evidence of God, I had no reason to believe anything is supernatural until my sister told me about it.

 

[Allan]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Your questions could be asked back of you thusly:

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for Buddha?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for Buddha when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for Buddha?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

 

[MamboDervish]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

Far be it from me to presume to speak for atheists, but I have to suspect that if they came upon a burning bush that spoke to them, some of them might consider it evidential - and naturally others would question their own senses and think they were hallucinating.
Off hand, given the right context, witnessing the miraculous would probably be helpful to some.

 

[Questerr]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

1. Is it logically consistent? Is it consistent with observable, verified science? Is it convincing to me?
2. The scientific method
3. You can educate yourself on how the scientific method works.
4. if you didn’t learn how the scientific method works in school, then I’m not going to educate you.
5. I do have a way to evaluate evidence. None of evidence a theist has ever presented to me is convincing.
6. I will reject any evidence that is not supported (IE don’t present me claims and tell me they are evidence, don’t present me anecdotal evidence that cannot be verified).

Now a question for you: why did you lie and claim atheists are afraid to answer those questions?

 

[Pete]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

I am god so there you have it!

 

[Peter]

I find it really odd that some people seem to find atheism so frightening.
They find any display of atheism a threat to religion which considering the sheer imbalance between the number of churches and the almost total lack of anything for atheists makes any threat seem meaningless.

 

[Lisa]

I find it really odd that some people seem to find atheism so frightening.
They find any display of atheism a threat to religion which considering the sheer imbalance between the number of churches and the almost total lack of anything for atheists makes any threat seem meaningless.

I've distilled it down to two ideas, but there might be more;

The fact that atheists exist is a threat to their own beliefs.

The idea that they are convinced that atheists want to ban religion in the same way the religious believers are known to want to ban the existence of anyone who doesn't believe in god in the same way that they do.

 

[watsup]

1. What is your process for evaluating evidence for God?
2. Do you even have a process for evaluating such evidence?
3. Are you willing to tell me, to describe this process?
4. If not why? why are you unwilling to describe a process yet eager for me to describe my evidence?
5. How can you claim you've never seen evidence for God when you do not have any way to evaluate evidence for God?
6 . Can you reassure me that you don't intend to reject anything and everything that I might show to you as evidence?

I've tried, I've asked several and all I get is evasion, waffling, prevarication.

What does it reveal to us when the atheist refuses to answer these? what can we infer from their stubborn refusals?

I put it to you that this means that these atheists actually already believe there is no God, they falsely claim to "withhold" belief because they want to masquerade as being rational, they do not want to admit that deep in their hearts they are convinced there is no God.

So when an atheist asks for evidence beware, they have no intention of honestly evaluating evidence, that's all just part of their game, their real process is to simply reject whatever is shown them, no need to evaluate when they already believe (but won't admit) that there is no God.

This is good old fashioned atheism: "an explicit belief that no gods exist" yet they are afraid too to even admit that and be honest.

*YAWN*

 

[stevecanuck]

Why are you trying to destroy religion?

Belief in god(s) is supposed to be based on faith. That's why it's called........wait for it....... "belief". Yet here you are trying to turn it into a scientifically proven fact. If you were to succeed, you would eliminate the need for faith, thereby eliminating the entire foundation on which all religion is based. It would just be another provable fact.

 

[Peter]

It's just ammusing seeing Fox News do entire segments about the threat of atheism and it turns out to be a posted on a billboard in a town with 25 churches or something equally silly.