I'm starting to wonder if this is a troll post. — ProbablyTrue

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Dah.
Atheists are a clue that Theists exist, not God. 8-)

Still not a single one reasonable argument for atheism. — Henri

I've presented one several times, and you ignored it.

If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable. So that His existence is denied is extraordinary, if He exists.

But His existence is denied. — Banno

Atheism requires no argument, Theist does.

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

And my conclusion is that atheists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God

The amount of blank ammunition atheists generally use against God makes me think that atheism itself is a miracle. Meaning, it's not something natural, but interruption of nature forced from something outside of our observable world.

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

I can't believe that a just and loving God could allow one of His followers to make such an atrocious argument, so I'm forced to conclude that God doesn't exist. QED.

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God — Henri

Ok, time to ante up. You refer to clues that nature provides. What, exactly are those clues? What are some examples?

If it's unreasonable, then it's not reason, right? Let's not waste time on straw men. Banno points out above that the reasoning of most a-theists consists in avoiding the flaws and errors in arguments for the existence of a real God. If you can understand that, you will be compelled to conclude that the reasoning of a-theists on this topic is conclusive and final. If you press beyond that, you're simply making clear you do not understand most religions, in that you insist on the existence of something that the religions themselves do not claim really exists.

Please observe my use of the qualifying adjective "real." There is no really existing god. On the other hand, that denial has nothing to do with the existence of the god of faith. That god exists in an original Greek sense of efficacy. It's really that simple.

If in spite of that, you insist on a real, existing god, then know that you have a private religion that is remote from formal religions. You're free to have that belief, but as a supposed expression of, say, Christianity, it is fatally flawed. And an exercise of ignorance - even if you have a lot of company.

Another brief story for your reading pleasure:

1400-or-so years ago a warlord walked into a cave in the countryside by himself. He stayed in there for some time (and on a few occasions by the way), and when he came out he reported having "seen things". Weird things, though related to the local culture, folklore and mythologies of that place and time. Others liked it all, and wrote things down — fantastic "from beyond" kinds of things.

Later this became like "the story of legends", supposedly with critically important messages for all of mankind, from a deity. An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-creator deity no less, or so they say.

Can anyone make sense of this? Why on Earth would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good deity impart critically important messages for all of mankind in such an obscure way, that can't be differentiated from hallucinations, delusions, whatever cognitive shortcomings, ...? That's setting the stage for failure, delivering implausible, crucial messages ineffectively, even requiring humans to do the dirty work (which is where indoctrination becomes useful, if not crucial). Going by the stories, it's like deceit, clashing with other such stories. (And what on Earth is up with those countless Hindu pilgrims voyaging to the Ganges regularly?) Yet, today those believers claim that their belief is like a prerequisite for eternal joy, and avoiding eternal suffering. If this stuff doesn't raise some red flags and suspicions, then I suggest trying to acquire an understanding of larger contexts.

If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable. So that His existence is denied is extraordinary, if He exists. — Banno

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable.

It's just your opinion. And there is surely no law that says that a human's opinion has to be true.

What about this "Hitchens' razor", by the way? It's embarrassing how some are using this to evaluate their thoughts:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

What is the evidence for this "Hitchens' razor"? It doesn't provide any evidence for it's claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence.

Nothing of note would ever be invented with this razor sharp method of thinking, since ideas would be dismissed without evidence, on spot, having being asserted without evidence. Thankfully people are not so cutting edge minded like Mr. Hitchens was, otherwise we would still be living in huts.

In that parallel universe, if I would go to a police because I was robbed, police would tell me: "Your assertion is made without evidence, so we are dissmising it without evidence. Case closed!"

Not to mention that there's no actual evidence for eternal material universe. Nor for universe coming to existence from nothing by some materialistic process. Nor for life coming to existence from non-life through chemistry and such. Hitchens could have used his own thought to dismiss his own worldview.

So what is this "razor"? Basically, just a sentence.

Why on Earth would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good deity... — jorndoe

Prove that a human has to understand everything about reality. Like, that there is an actual natural law that says that humans have to understand everything about all of the reality.

If you can't do that, if you are only voicing an opinion, then what you are writing here doesn't prove anything about the non-existence of God. At best, or worst, you can be neutral agnostic.

God is a clue that atheists exist

What is the evidence for this "Hitchens' razor"? It doesn't provide any evidence for it's claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence. — Henri

Nonsense. Every example of imaginary or fictional things you can come up with, and every example of evident things, comprise evidence. (But was your post an admission that you don't have evidence for your claims...?)

If the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof of existence, then we must conclude that all exist. — Asimov

Prove that a human has to understand everything about reality. — Henri

Prove? Of course we're not omniscient. I'll take that as an admission that you don't know either. (Y)
Back to shifting the burden of proof? Otherwise please go ahead.
As an aside, do you then take the story of seeing things in the cave above, to be literally as postulated later by (non-Christian) believers?

Of course we're not omniscient. — jorndoe

So, at this point in time, you have no way of knowing if God exists or not. That makes it reasonable conclusion for you to be a neutral agnostic. If you believe or think that there is no God, you are being unreasonable.

I do know that God exists because of supernatural conviction. I don't have to prove that to you, nor I could.

As far as your questions about this or that cave story, I can answer a lot for you, as I did for some of your previous posts, but by your previous responses you don't seem to be very much interested in my answers for knowledge or understanding, so my answers went to waste. And this thread is not about specific claims for God or god anyway.

As far as you are aware, any of available claims can be true, or none at all, and it still doesn't show anything towards the non-existence of God.

If the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof of existence, then we must conclude that all exist. — Asimov

Is this one more logic like "Hitchens' razor"?

Failure of proof of nonexistence just means that one can't prove that something doesn't exist. No need for absurd conclusions, because that can go both ways - if the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof for non-existence, then we must conclude that everything which can't be proven to exist, doesn't exist.

Although, physicists have actually developed infinite multiverse theory, in which all really does exist, including Santa Clause, leprechauns and flying unicorns. And at least one universe in which jorndoe believes in God.

As far as clues for God's existence go, they are vast. I am not even talking about clues for God's existence here. I am saying that even if nothing would point to God existing, in universe like ours it would be unreasonable to conclude that there is no God.

What about this "Hitchens' razor", by the way? It's embarrassing how some are using this to evaluate their thoughts:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
What is the evidence for this "Hitchens' razor"? It doesn't provide any evidence for it's claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence.
Nothing of note would ever be invented with this razor sharp method of thinking, since ideas would be dismissed without evidence, on spot, having being asserted without evidence. — Henri

If you care about your own understanding, then you would do yourself a favour by looking up Hitchen's razor to find out what it is.

Oh, I have seen it. It is embarrassing you are using it as a tool to evaluate your logic.

Oh, I have seen it. It is embarrassing you are using it as a tool to evaluate your logic. — Henri

Is English your first language?

No. Why?

You do pretty well. I speak and write only English - my shortcoming! But there's a problem, apparently you're not understanding ideas presented in simple English. If you did learn anything about Hitchen's razor, you would know that it is exactly not what you think it is for.

Here's from wikipedia: "Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."

Isn't this description true?

I understand how limited this "razor" is, but limitation should be included in "razor" itself. Like:

"In a debate between two opponents, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I took the claim as originaly stated. I don't need to learn about the claim to use it. As originaly stated, claim is basically nonsense.

If one wants to define it more precisely, I can take the claim like that too. If the claim is: "In a debate between two opponents, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence", I can agree with it or not, but that claim has nothing to do with what's true.

Furthermore, it says what can be done, not what is the wisest way to react in order to get to the truth or closest to the truth as possible.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable. — Henri

So god hides himself, only allowing a few to know him, damning the others.

By the way, as I remember, Hitchens used to proclaim how burden of proof is on those who say that God exists.

That's really rich.

There is a mathematical impossibility that universe, with all the complexities of life, comes from some chance or unconscious process, and one has a gall to talk about who has a burden of proof or not.

So God hides himself, only allowing a few to know him, damning the others. — Banno

There's a much more serious and sorrowful explanation than what you wrote. But I am not going to write it here. One doesn't need to know it, in order to believe in God.

God didn't create the universe. Satan did. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan then wrote the Bible to confuse people and make them think they were chosen by God, when in fact they were chosen by Satan. Every few hundred years Satan creates a new religion purporting to be the truth of the one true God to keep the confusion going. This is obvious in the world. How do I know this? Satan has spoken to me supernaturally. I wouldn't dare try to convince you of it. You wouldn't believe me if I did. That and I don't need to. The burden of proof isn't on me, you see.

So again we just have to believe you.

Satan has spoken to me supernaturally. — ProbablyTrue

If satan spoke to you supernaturally, then you have been told a lie.

If satan spoke to you supernaturally, then you have been told a lie. — Henri

No, he told me the truth.

So again we just have to believe you. — Banno

Nobody has to believe me.

This thread is about how atheists come to their conclusion through unreasonable thought process. Nothing to do with people believing me or not about the existence of God.

A neutral agnostic can sit down and examine how an atheist, one who rejects that God exists, reasoned for his or her position, and conclude that the reasoning was flawed.

Even an atheist can do a self-examination and come to the same conclusion.

This thread is about how atheists come to their conclusion through unreasonable thought process. Nothing to do with people believing me or not about the existence of God. — Henri

Then wouldn't it be appropriate for you to set out the atheistic arguments that are so poor, and show us the error of our ways?

But you have not done so.

Then wouldn't it be appropriate for you to set out the atheistic arguments that are so poor, and show us the error of our ways? — Banno

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP.

The problem is that all the arguments I have read or heard are flawed. I would have to list them all and then explain them all. Or I would have to list them all for me privately, and then somehow rank them and explain most prominent or most regular ones. I could have done that, but I didn't.

This thread has some decent number of posts, though, and I haven't seen one reasonable argument to deny existence of God.

And again, I am not even arguing for the existence of God here. A position of neutral agnosticism can be reasonably argued, as I see it.