"Only the true Messiah denies his divinity" - Life of Brian.

So Atheists are evidence of god because it's a miracle that they could be so stupid... XD

BEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD EVER.

10/10!!!!!

If as an atheist I'm merely firing blanks, then you must be playing with an unloaded toy "cap-gun"...

But if human stupidity can actually be miraculous, I would sooner point to all the superstitions of religion than their rejection...

@VagabondSpectre, good to see you doing the Lord's work.

Presumably, since we atheists have fulfilled our part of His Devine Plan, we are bound for heaven.

On a more practical note, will atheist organisations now be eligible for the same tax-free status as churches?

We are but humble thorns drifting on winds of fate. Pricks of the divine thralled to prod and poke the most devout as a test of piety. In truth we are very close to the arch-angels of old; lacking free will of our own we act as the natural destructive tools of our lord unto the righteous Jobs among us.

Verily, our special place is guaranteed.

On a more practical note, will atheist organisations now be eligible for the same tax-free status as churches? — Banno

Interestingly, an atheist "church" can get tax exempt status as long as it A, has at east 10k followes, B, claims to be a religion with some vague "purpose in life" shtick weaved in, and C, finds a sympathetic IRS ear or has enough lawyers to extort tax exempt status out of them with the threat of mass litigation (see: Scientology).

Only after I came to an understanding that God exists, I started to look into atheistic arguments more closely. — Henri

In order to come to an understanding that god exists, there must have been a prior time where you did not have an understanding that god exists, hence the phrase "Only after...".

If, prior to your new understanding that god exists you did not examine your own beliefs and changed your mind before truly understanding them, then what leads us to the conclusion that the arguments for your new beliefs or understanding have themselves been "looked into more closely"?

Emotional outburst to the OP is in line with being "quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God."

Reversing the argument and saying that "if atheists are merely firing blanks, then people who understand that God exists must be playing with an unloaded toy" is true, actually, but it's true only on surface level.

The deeper you get into understanding God through God's revelation and creation, the more you understand that everything is exactly as it should be, at this point in time. Including that one cannot deduce that God exists by looking at people who claim to believe that God exists.

The opposite is true for atheism. On surface level atheism seems reasonable. But the more you look into it, the more atheism reveals itself to be unreasonable.

What leads us to the conclusion that the arguments for your new beliefs or understanding have themselves been "looked into more closely"? — Uneducated Pleb

Result of a math equation is either true or not, it doesn't matter what reseach or work have I done prior to solving the equation.

You might want to know whether I have been looking into it more closely so you would believe me or not without going into the subject matter yourself, but I don't need people either believing me or not based on my authority on this, or lack thereof.

The deeper you get into understanding God through God's revelation and creation, the more you understand that everything is exactly as it should be, at this point in time. — Henri

This is exactly right. The argument in the Op is undeniable. Given the premise of there being a god, He must, by His divine nature, be evident in everything that happens.

So Tsetse fly and childhood cancer and earthquakes and so on are part of the scheme of things.

Reach what conclusion you will about the personality of this personal god.

Given the premise of there being God, He must, by His divine nature, be evident in everything that happens. — Banno

This argument can be expanded upon, based on what's available to a human in regards to understanding God.

But OP is not about looking at God, but about looking at atheism. Real atheism, one that we witness on Earth, not some abstract idea of atheism, is quite unreasonable regardless if this universe is created by God or not. I happen to understand that God exists, so I can see it as a sort of miracle.

I agree; you are quite right that if your premise is that God exists, then the existence of atheists is quite an extraordinary thing. Given the perfection of the world is such that god is, for you , undeniable, denying god must call for an extraordinary irrationality.

Emotional outburst to the OP is in line with being "quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God."

Reversing the argument and saying that "if atheists are merely firing blanks, then people who understand that God exists must be playing with an unloaded toy" is true, actually, but it's true only on surface level.

The deeper you get into understanding God through God's revelation and creation, the more you understand that everything is exactly as it should be, at this point in time. Including that one cannot deduce that God exists by looking at people who claim to believe that God exists. — Henri

What makes you think the sacred Hindu texts aren't the revelation of the gods?

The opposite is true for atheism. On surface level atheism seems reasonable. But the more you look into it, the more atheism reveals itself to be unreasonable.[/quote]

Atheism is the lack of theism: the absence of theistic belief. I don't know how lacking belief in God somehow becomes more unreasonable once you get deeper into it (there's nothing deep about it though...).

My atheism is me saying that arguments purporting to reveal god's existence or nature have always been based on unreasonable evidence. Since the evidence is unreasonable, it would be unreasonable for me to submit to belief.

Given the perfection of the world is such that God is, for you, undeniable, denying God must call for an extraordinary irrationality. — Banno

World is perfect in terms of its purpose, not in terms of some abstract perfection. In that sense I see it as perfect. In terms of general perfection, or ultimate perfection, however one would call it, it's far from perfect.

But, again, what OP is about is that merely observing atheistic train of thought, to put it that way, reveals it to be "quite unreasonable." And as such, it's a miracle, since it's out of norm to have people to be so unreasonable in their reasoning while they claim to use reason to come to conclusion. Just as a small note, basically all of today's prominent atheists are much more emotional than reasonable in their approach, while they claim to be reasonable in what they conclude, which in turns reveals itself to be unreasonable.

My atheism is me saying that arguments purporting to reveal God's existence or nature have always been based on unreasonable evidence. — VagabondSpectre

If you are an agnostic, saying that you don't know whether God exists or not, that would be one thing.

But if you want to conclude that you believe, or think, or are certain that there is no God, based on lack of what you define as evidence, is another thing.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists, He will universally provide evidence for His existence.

World is perfect in terms of its purpose, not in terms of some abstract perfection. — Henri

Indeed, what's a few pointless, painful deaths in the big picture?

Of course, we could flip your argument around, Reductio - style. Given that god exists, atheism is incredible; yet atheists exist; therefore god is not credible...

Agnosticism is the position that evidence pertaining to god(s) existence and nature is not yet attained or is unattainable. I happen to be agnostic, but this is an entirely separate position than whether or not I believe in the existence of god(s).

Agnosticism is about the empirical un-knowability of god(s) existence, while theism and atheism refer to believing or not believing respectively.

The statement "I believe and claim to know that no god(s) exist" is the position of hard-atheism, and it only accounts for about 5% of all atheists. "Soft atheism" is the position of lacking belief in any god(s), and remember, agnosticism is believing that empirical or rational evidence of gods existence or nature is unattainable (so the two tend to come together).

Plenty of theists are happy to believe in god's existence based on faith rather than evidence and will happily admit that god cannot be scientifically shown to exist; it requires faith.

Faith. The thing that makes people choose to believe in something despite there being no evidence to believe in it. Beware of dog(ma).

Indeed, what's a few pointless, painful deaths in the big picture? — Banno

That is just a sample of offhand reasoning I'm talking about. There is really no deep thought, examination, inspection of our reality behind it. Not saying that you are not capable of deep thoughts, of course, but that your specific objection about our reality does not reveal anything of essence about our reality.

Of course, we could flip your argument around, Reductio - style. Given that God exists, atheism is incredible; yet atheists exist; therefore god is not credible... — Banno

Not really, it would be more like this - Given that God exists, atheism seems unlikely; yet atheists exist; therefore there is a purpose for atheism in this creation.

Yes, but I would say that any atheism, hard or soft, is probably not reasonable. One can be agnostic but not an atheist.

It is a consequence of complex nature of our reality that people who believe in God don't do it in blind faith, as an agnostic (who is not an atheist) or an atheist would presume. But that's another topic.

To believe in God, or to have faith in God, even doesn't mean to believe that God exists. It means to put trust in God. Understanding that God exists has already occured.

Yes, but I would say that any atheism, hard or soft, is probably not reasonable. One can be agnostic but not an atheist. — Henri

Being a soft atheist is the rationally consistent result of being an agnostic. If knowledge pertaining to god cannot be rationally accessed, then it cannot be rationally held in belief.

What is god's revelation? How do you understand that god exists? Does your understanding base itself in reality, reason, or evidence?

Being a soft atheist is the rationally consistent result of being an agnostic. — VagabondSpectre

An agnostic can say that he or she neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists. She just doesn't know what to think about it. If I would to classiffy myself prior to getting to know that God exists, I would say I was that kind of agnostic.

How do you understand that God exists? — VagabondSpectre

You probably (or maybe) won't like the answer, but the answer is - supernaturally. You cannot know that God exists until God decides to show to you that He exists.

I am not talking about one specific way of God doing it. If you go to a Christian church, for example, and talk to a large number of people who all say they are convinced that God exists, you will hear different ways each of them got the conviction. Some ways may be similar to each other, but generally, God reveals His existence in myriad of different ways.

God reveals His existence in myriad of different ways. — Henri

Like when Joseph Smith read from the golden plates out of a top hat because god said nobody else was allowed to see?

Not every story a man can tell is true. But that's neither pro or con for God's existence.

And as a miracle, it's basically one more clue for existence of God. — Henri

ROTFLMFHO

There is really no deep thought, examination, inspection of our reality behind it. — Henri

Well, thank you. Very kind. I do think that pain here and now is more pressing than the perfection of God's plan. Doubtless if I were a more thoughtful person I would be less troubled by the problems of this world. then I could say things like "My thoughts and prays are with you" while failing to do anything practical.

But I think I prefer my approach.

, the opening post mostly seems like some (self-serving?) postulates without justification.

Anyway, we can't talk about atheism without first having talked about theism:
You make some fantastic claims.
You call yourself theist.
I don't believe your claims.
You call me atheist.

1. there are good people and other animals suffering
2. either all suffering, without exception, is warranted (strong assertion, all instances)
3. or there exists some unwanted suffering to do away with (light assertion, some instances)
4. it stands to reason that there is unwanted suffering, that can possibly be relieved by humans (like some has been)
5. consistent with a largely indifferent universe, and non-teleological biological evolution

Other than civilized societies, what — anywhere — cares about me/you/us?

Oh, I rather think it may be.

We are but humble thorns drifting on winds of fate. Pricks of the divine thralled to prod and poke the most devout as a test of piety. In truth we are very close to the arch-angels of old; lacking free will of our own we act as the natural destructive tools of our lord unto the righteous Jobs among us. — VagabondSpectre

But are we appreciated for our efforts? Not a bit.

I do think that pain here and now is more pressing than the perfection of God's plan. — Banno

What you wrote is a knee jerk reaction. Much more emotional than result of an effort to understand how God can create a world with evil in it.

Not to mention that you are basically saying that in case God exists you are more moral than Him. Aside from illogicality that creation could have more empathy and love than all-powerful creator who gave creation said empathy and love, what you wrote is blasphemous, yet you are still alive and everything you have, including opportunity to publicly stand against God and present "your approach", is given to you by that very God.

But regardless, there is no known natural law that says that if God exists, there would be no evil in any part of His creation, at any time. "Evil objection" is an offhand objection against presumed character of God, not an argument against existence of God.

There are good people and other animals suffering... Other than civilized societies, what — anywhere — cares about me/you/us? — jorndoe

"Suffering objection", like "evil objection", is at best offhand objection against presumed character of God, not an argument against existence of God.

Suffering and evil reveal seriousness of our reality, and to understand why God allows them, for some time within His creation, takes effort.

You don't expect to pick up a book on advanced mathematics and instantly understand how to solve complex equations. Why would you expect to get such hard fact of our reality as suffering and evil without a serious effort?