Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, I have read your post and must say that I expected more from you than what you have supplied. I am sorry that you devoted so little thought and time in compiling this response. I shall endeavor not to return the favor but to thoughtfully and respectfully address what you have written.

There wasn't much more to be said. You boldly declare that God exists becuase you say so, and all I had to do was point out that that doesn't quite work.

I find it quite interesting that on one hand, you demand proof that God exists, and then on the other, maintain very unapologetically and quite vigorously that you have a problem with God's decision to create a world of free creatures who rewards said creatures according to their deeds, whether these deeds be evil or good.

It seems to me my friend, that if God's existence was demonstrated to you as you seem to want us to believe is all that you need to happen in order for you to believe, then this would be the greatest of nightmares come true for you.

This would be the very last thing you would want to happen. You see Wiccan Child, this God of Christianity is by your own words a: "phenomenally wicked" individual. Just think for a moment how you would feel if God appeared in the sky and said: "Hey look here, I exist!"

Surely you would ball your fist, clench your teeth and say at the top of your lungs: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! It can't be!!!!!!"

Surely you would pinch yourself in the hopes that it was all a horrendous nightmare and that by pinching yourself, you would awaken to your godless world in which there is no God who knows your every thought and who will one day render to you what your deeds merit.

You do not believe the God of the bible exists because you view this God as a phenomenally wicked celestial tyrant and to keep your mind at ease, you at all costs will not entertain the possibility that this being could exist. It is akin to a man, who in an attempt to keep a very bad memory forever buried in the recesses of his mind, continually blocks out any and everything that could trigger that memory to surface.

I was with you up until this last paragraph. You are right that I believe the God of the Bible to be phenomenally wicked, but you are wrong in that this is not the reason I don't believe in him. Such a stance would be fundamentally fallacious and couched in nothing more than emotion and denial.

No, by disbelief in God comes from the sheer lack of evidence for him. If the evidence points to his existence, then I'll believe he exists. Why would I believe otherwise? I may loath him for his wickedness, or praise him for his good deeds, but his existence is based solely on the evidence.

It is akin to the Shutter Island character played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who, in an attempt to deal with the horrendous memory of killing his wife after she killed their three children, unconsciously develops this alternate personality and world in which he lives where he is not a widower who murdered his wife, but rather, a detective on a island in search for mad scientists...

In layman's terms, for you, and many who think like you, God is simply bad news... a spoilsport, a killjoy, a big man upstairs with a bat who is itching to crack your skull and send you into a fiery oven for the slightest infraction. A cosmic north korean dictator (Christopher Hitchens) who loves torturing the "innocent". Of course you are going to want to disbelieve in such a being....

Again, you're shoving words into my mouth and beliefs into my brain. Again, my disbelief in God is based on the evidence (or conspicuous lack thereof).

You'll note that I also disbelieve every other religion, regardless of how nice or fun their beliefs are - Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, 'love yourself' Satanism, etc. If my beliefs were based on nothing more than "what I want to be true", then I'd be a blissful eclectic mix of Wiccan and Buddhist.

Humans have remarkable defense mechanisms, as I am sure you are aware. And the human brain is capable of much. Many times, when confronted with an unpleasant truth, people utter words like: "its not real, its not real...its just my imagination....its just my imagination...." or "this cant really be happening, it just cant be happening"....

Sometimes, yes. Are you seriously suggesting that's at the root of my disbelief? That I secretly know God exists but have suppressed the knowledge? Because I'd love to see the secret CAT scan you took that led you to this conclusion.

And yet.....

And yet....


You unabashedly demand proof and demonstrations that this God exists!

As if by being supplied proof would cause you to immediately and gladly believe and worship this God....

But we all know that is not what you would do...right?

Well, yea - see, this is the problem with putting words into people's mouths. To clarify:

• I never "demand proof" - I request evidence.
• I never said I would worship God if he was shown to exist, only that I would acknowledge his existence. Demonstrating why God should be worshipped is the 'next step' if you like, but clearly the 'first step' in converting to Christianity is demonstrating that God even exists, let alone is worthy of worship.
• I never said I disbelieve in God because he is wicked, but if God was shown to exist, that wickedness would preclude me from worshipping him. "I exist, so worship me" is a laughable concept.

I have no problem believing in wicked things (I don't ignore humanitarian crises such as HIV/AIDS or Somalia), but I see no reason to venerate them.

I mean, if you are gonna be completely honest.... what would be your response if you were convinced God did exist?

"Well, this is awkward".

I'd then investigate, first seeing if there was a way to communicate with this being. If so, I'd then ask if God could explain his apparent inaction over the horrific things that go on in the world. I'd also see if he knew the answer to the various mysteries in the universe - the nature of alien life in the universe, the cosmos' true topology, any major blunders in modern science, the nature of conciousness, that sort of thing.

But proving the God of Christianity exists does not disprove the notion that he is wicked, so I would not get on bended knee for such a creature. Why would I?

 

[crimsonleaf]

"Well, this is awkward".

 

[Elioenai26]

There wasn't much more to be said. You boldly declare that God exists becuase you say so,

I gave five reasons as to how God has demonstrated His existence, none of which include or allude to the "because I say so" which you claim they do. These reasons are all subject to investigation, to scrutiny, and to observation and can be deemed more plausibly explained by God's existence than by any other explanation if examined objectively. The supplying of such reasons is a far cry from me saying: "God exists because I say He exists."

In fact, no Christian apologist uses the "because I say so" line of reasoning in their work so your argument is ultimately aimed at a strawman.

Even if I were to say: "God exists because I say so...", it does not follow therefore that God exists. If I declare: "God does not exist...", it does not follow therefore that God does not exist. God's existence is wholly independent of what anyone says or thinks, as I am sure you are aware.

I was with you up until this last paragraph. You are right that I believe the God of the Bible to be phenomenally wicked, but you are wrong in that this is not the reason I don't believe in him. Such a stance would be fundamentally fallacious and couched in nothing more than emotion and denial.

No, by disbelief in God comes from the sheer lack of evidence for him. If the evidence points to his existence, then I'll believe he exists. Why would I believe otherwise? I may loath him for his wickedness, or praise him for his good deeds, but his existence is based solely on the evidence.

God's existence is not based on evidence. There may be no evidence whatsoever that God exists, and yet He still may exist, we would just not know. This is an epistemological issue not to be confused with ontology.

I also made the simple point that you ultimately do not want to believe in God.

This is the crucial point not to be overlooked.

I am confident that if asked whether or not you want God to exist you would say: "No!"

You would say no because you view God as "phenomenally wicked", among other things.

When it comes to those who possess desire regarding God's existence, there are two types of people:

1. Those who want there to be a God.
2. Those who do not want there to be a God.

Motives, intentions, desires.....these are the hidden and secret things that move a man. These things are unknown to all except the man who possesses them.

So you see my friend, when you say: "there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe He exists...", I, as a Christian apologist go one step further and ask you the simple question:

"Do you even want there to be a God?"

The reason I ask this question is because implicit in your reason for not believing, there is this idea that you would believe if you were given evidence of His existence.

You are, in other words saying: "If only there were evidence, then I would believe!" as if your hands are tied and you are just waiting for someone to present you with good evidence.

Which leads me to my second point.

Believing in something and believing in someone are two different matters.

God is not concerned with humans possessing a mere propositional knowledge of Him, or a mere intellectual assent to His existence akin to our believing that there is a country called "China", or that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4 or that Barak Obama is the president of the United States. These are all propositions that are either true or false and are ascertained by pure reasoning and intellectual capacities.

God is not concerned with us believing He exists in this fashion, for even the demons believe and tremble....

When Christians speak of believing in Christ, this is the belief of personal reliance, dependence, relationship, trust, hope, love, etc. etc. This believing is akin to a woman believing in her husband, not that he exists as some abstract entity i.e. the moon that orbits the earth, but believing in her husband in the sense that she loves, trusts, honors, and depends on him to protect her and to provide for her. It is relational. This belief requires the mind as well as the heart.

So you see, there is much here that you must understand. You have already confessed that even if you were convinced of God's existence, this would not lead you to believe in Him in the relational sense. You would lift your head up proudly, stick out your chin, rare back your shoulders and defiantly seek to question Him and to pass judgement on His will and ways as if you were somehow were greater than He. As if you could come up with a better plan for humanity than He could. As if you could come up with a better way to save the lost souls of corrupted sinful men and women. This would be akin to a hammer seeking to question and judge the carpenter who wields it. You have it backwards my friend.

1. You do not want there to be a God and although you have not said this outright, this is presumed. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. You see the God of the bible as wicked.

3. You say you do not believe in God because there is no evidence.

4. If 1. and 2. are true, then why not just rather say you do not want God to exist? Why not just be like Thomas Nagel and say what is really on your heart? Why not just say you do not want there to be a God and stop asking for evidence of His existence?

Why the pretense?

You yourself say:

I would not get on bended knee for such a creature. Why would I?

So why not just rather say you do not want there to be a God and be done with it?

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you actually conceding that the God you believe in is actually a wicked celestial tyrant?

Note:

"You do not believe the God of the bible exists because you view this God as a phenomenally wicked celestial tyrant...."

The bolded portions of the italicized statement are referents to Wiccan Child. It was he who stated that God was a phenomenally wicked being.

 

[Elioenai26]

There are plenty of people who believe that Satan exists - although in their worldview Satan is the epitome of an evil entity.
Your attempt at armchair psychology fails, Eli.

My point was that people do not go around asking for proof of the existence of a being in hopes that they may believe it exists and at the same time believe that such a being is "phenomenally wicked".

That would be like me running around asking people to please supply me with evidence that the boogeyman is real and to show me where he keeps the dead mutilated bodies of the little boys and girls he has kidnapped and tortured.

Unless of course said person is just possessd of an extremely morbid and sadistic curiosity.....

But I would rather be charitable and give Wiccan Child the benefit of the doubt and say that he is not actually concerned with evidence for God at all.

I know that if given the choice between the two, I would rather be seen as one who simply does not want God to exist than to appear to be a demented, sick, morbidly curious individual who spends their time asking for evidence of a celestial tyrant....

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I gave five reasons as to how God has demonstrated His existence, none of which include or allude to the "because I say so" which you claim they do.

Incorrect! All 5 "reasons" you gave below fail because they are assuming the initial point. They are just mere claims nothing more.

For one, God's existence is demonstrated in the things that have been made.

Because you say so.

For two, God's existence has been demonstrated in the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, has been raised from the dead which was the culmination of His worldly ministry and the fulfillment of several prophecies which were given hundreds of years before He was even born.

Because you say so.

Thirdly, God is alive and working through His Church, which is His body and His means through which He works and fulfills His plans and purposes in this present age.

Because you say so.

Fourthly, each child of God has the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that they are children of God and this witness demonstrates to them in a thousand and a thousand ways that God is love and that He dwells within them.

Because you say so.

Fifthly, God's existence is demonstrated in the love that the children of God have not only for one another, but for humanity in general. For Christ Himself said that the world would know that we were His disciples by the love that we have for one another.

The "because I say so approach" has no more credibility or exclusivity than any of the "reasons" my hindu or muslim friends came come up with.

At best Elio you are on par with them for demonstrating any existence of the divine, but keep in mind that the deity you aspire to is still malevolent.

 

[Elioenai26]

I emulated your Petito Principii fallacy. (Begging the question) You are presupposing the existence of your deity, in order to justify your reasoning.

I will demonstrate to you why you are wrong in charging me with begging the question.

In a criminal murder trial, the state presents five pieces of evidence against a man they have in custody whom they have charged with murder. The evidence is as follows:

1. A dead body is found in the woods behind a house which is the only house in the area. The victim was killed by a single .45 caliber gunshot wound to the head.
2. The owner of the house was questioned and his blood and fingerprints were taken and compared with the body of the deceased. His hands were also checked for gunpowder residue.
3. Both the man's dna and fingerprints were found on the deceased man's body and gunpowder residue was found on the man's hands as well.
4. Records were checked and it was discovered that the owner of the house had purchased a .45 caliber handgun several days prior to the incident.
5. Finally, relatives of both men were questioned and it was revealed that the deceased man had been having an affair with the homeowner's girlfriend.

In this case, the state is not begging the question that the homeowner killed the man in the woods. All the state is doing is taking the evidence they have at their disposal and examining it and drawing conclusion from said evidence. They understand that in this world, effects have causes. They understand that dead bodies don't just pop into existence in wooded areas for no reason, they understand that gunpowder residue does'nt just appear on people's hands for no reason. They understand that murders are committed by murderers.

Cause and effect, effects have causes.

Looking at effects allows us to draw conclusions about their cause(s). The man is convicted of murder by a jury of his peers. No one in their right mind would accuse the jurors of "begging the question" here. The evidence is clear and it supports the verdict of guilty.

Likewise, the five lines of evidence I gave are all effects and point to a cause like the lines of evidence in the criminal case pointed to a perpetrator of a crime.

The universe has a cause, this cause is God.
The existence of the Church Universal has a cause, this cause is God.
The existence of the selfless, self-sacrificing love of Christians has a cause, this cause is God.
Etc.
Etc.

Now, if you have a problem with any of the above, then you refute it, show how these effects could have other causes that are more plausible and more probable than God and you are on your way to successful argumentation.

To sit back and throw off logical fallacies that you do not even fully understand and consider that to be the end of the argument is not sound my friend.

If Jesus was a human being of no supernatural origin then

Then we would not be having this conversation.....go on...

yes, apples to oranges. However, you are claiming Jesus is a deity are you not?

Not at all. I have never claimed Jesus was a deity as if He is merely one of many. I assure you, I am not a polytheist. I have, however, on numerous occassions, and in accordance with truth, claimed that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is God.

Simply claiming that gods exist on the basis of "because I said so" can be described as not only authorative and arrogant, but fallacious.

I agree with you. I would be the first to expose such ridiculous reasoning as fallacious, in fact I have already done so.

Now, once again, where have I said that God exists because I say He exists?

 

[Lollerskates]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Agnosticism doesn't have much to do with God (besides the obvious.) Agnosticism means "without knowledge" - where "a" is a Greek prefix for without, and gnosis is Greek for knowledge.

The Gnostics were esoteric, and so everyone else that weren't in their circle of "the know" was considered agnostic. This included the common Christian. Gnostikos is "learned" in Greek, from which the root etymology comes. Agnostic has become a colloquial word for "someone who believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists" or, a middle ground between believers (of any kind,) and an atheist.

Believing in a diety is an act of faith. Everyone has faith in something - even atheists and agnostics. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. For example, you have faith that your boss will pay you at the appointed time, or that the check you receive won't bounce. You can have faith that the earth will not condense to the Schwarzschild radius. You can have faith that the bridge under you won't collapse. Et cetera.

 

[Elioenai26]

Incorrect! All 5 "reasons" you gave below fail because they are assuming the initial point. They are just mere claims nothing more.

Because you say so.

Because you say so.

Because you say so.

Because you say so.


The "because I say so approach" has no more credibility or exclusivity than any of the "reasons" my hindu or muslim friends came come up with.

At best Elio you are on par with them for demonstrating any existence of the divine, but keep in mind that the deity you aspire to is still malevolent.

Every reason I gave is subject to scrutiny, examination and questioning. The Kalam Cosmological argument outlines why reason one is more than a "because I say so..."

The life, death, and resurrection of Christ are all historical events, subject to scrutiny, investigation, and are falsifiable. For these reasons, this is not a "because I say so..."

The history of the Church is recorded in the pages of history. Once again, all subject to investigation, scrutinization, and inquiry. For this reason, this is not a "because I say so..."

The immediate and internal witness of the Holy Spirit is what is philosophically termed: "A properly basic belief" akin to knowing that the external world is real and not created five minutes ago with the illusion of age, or knowing that we are not brains in a vat, or bodies in the matrix. It is a belief that is a part of the very makeup of the person who possesses it.

The love displayed by Christians is observable to all who are affected by it. For this reason, this is not a "because I say so...." form of reasoning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Note:

"You do not believe the God of the bible exists because you view this God as a phenomenally wicked celestial tyrant...."

The bolded portions of the italicized statement are referents to Wiccan Child. It was he who stated that God was a phenomenally wicked being.

Phenomenally wicked, if he exists. You're omitting the final clause.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

The love displayed by Christians is observable to all who are affected by it. For this reason, this is not a "because I say so...." form of reasoning.

You are now playing with words Elio, I can also accurately describe the love displayed by atheists is observable to all who are affected by it.
But this is not evidence to support the existence of any god no matter how many times I say it is.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Now, once again, where have I said that God exists because I say He exists?

I get the impression you are deliberately ignoring your error but I will once again give you the benefit of the doubt, if somewhat reluctantly this time.

You are using the same five tired and worn out arguments that William Lane Craig and other's have used to argue for the existence of a god(s)

Use them as arguments, that is what they are, just arguments.

The error in your approach is that you are asserting these arguments as knowledge, evidence and truth.

This is the "because I said so" error you are consistently making.

Now do you acknowledge?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Elio my learned apologetic, do you REALLY expect me to accept that your "lines of evidence" analogy is sound?

REALLY??

Allow me to demonstrate the error in your reasoning.

Scenario 1.

For one, God's existence is demonstrated in the things that have been made.

For two, God's existence has been demonstrated in the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, has been raised from the dead which was the culmination of His worldly ministry and the fulfillment of several prophecies which were given hundreds of years before He was even born.

Thirdly, God is alive and working through His Church, which is His body and His means through which He works and fulfills His plans and purposes in this present age.

Fourthly, each child of God has the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that they are children of God and this witness demonstrates to them in a thousand and a thousand ways that God is love and that He dwells within them.

Fifthly, God's existence is demonstrated in the love that the children of God have not only for one another, but for humanity in general. For Christ Himself said that the world would know that we were His disciples by the love that we have for one another.

This scenario boasts an abundance of hearsay evidence. There is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence in this scenario for the existence of a god, let alone which one.

Scenario 2.

1. A dead body is found in the woods behind a house which is the only house in the area. The victim was killed by a single .45 caliber gunshot wound to the head.
2. The owner of the house was questioned and his blood and fingerprints were taken and compared with the body of the deceased. His hands were also checked for gunpowder residue.
3. Both the man's dna and fingerprints were found on the deceased man's body and gunpowder residue was found on the man's hands as well.
4. Records were checked and it was discovered that the owner of the house had purchased a .45 caliber handgun several days prior to the incident.
5. Finally, relatives of both men were questioned and it was revealed that the deceased man had been having an affair with the homeowner's girlfriend.

This scenario boasts an abundance of factually reliable evidence.

The evidence is so credible it negates a need to "beg the question."

The crucial distinction between your two scenario's is clear and precise is it not?

Please acknowledge this crucial distinction is the baneful error in your reasoning Elio?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Elio my learned apologetic, do you REALLY expect me to accept that your "lines of evidence" analogy is sound?

REALLY??

Allow me to demonstrate the error in your reasoning.

Scenario 1.



This scenario boasts an abundance of hearsay evidence. There is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence in this scenario for the existence of a god, let alone which one.

Scenario 2.



This scenario boasts an abundance of factually reliable evidence.

The evidence is so credible it negates a need to "beg the question."

The crucial distinction between your two scenario's is clear and precise is it not?

Please acknowledge this crucial distinction is the baneful error in your reasoning Elio?

I am not the one you're addressing, but would like to point out the crucial difference between "evidence" and "proof".

All that has been quoted is evidence of God in the first batch. Whether that evidence is proof or not depends entirely on one's presuppositions when approaching them. If you don't believe in God then no amount of our evidence will convince you. Equally, we should never present our evidence as anything other than subjective.

All we can do is state our own views and ask that you present alternative views along with everything which you regard as evidence for your position.

So when we present the evidence for what we call creation, for example, in this case a creator, you should counter it with an alternative theory for "creation". As yet, there is none, but there are three major theories: the universe has always existed; the universe was started with a catylist; the universe self actuated with no catalyst. Choosing and presenting one of those options gives a starting point for debate. If there are options I've missed which don't fit into one of the three choices then present them as well.

But most of the time the argument from our opponents is "We don't know, but we feel you must be wrong" which appears more like an emotive rather than scientific response. Why must we be wrong? Because so far you haven't observed God? Well you haven't observed anything else either, so that would be a weak position to hold.

All of this is way off the OP, but to restate the obvious truth, neither the atheist nor the theist is agnostic because their beliefs are not contingent upon other people's views and are sincerely held. One group is wrong, but there is no proof either way as to which group. However, we believe that our evidence outweighs your lack of evidence.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I am not the one you're addressing, but would like to point out the crucial difference between "evidence" and "proof".

All that has been quoted is evidence of God in the first batch. Whether that evidence is proof or not depends entirely on one's presuppositions when approaching them. If you don't believe in God then no amount of our evidence will convince you. Equally, we should never present our evidence as anything other than subjective.

Hello crimsonleaf

I understand and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and "proof" thank you.

I'm not asking for proof.

I will happily, willingly even, examine any credible scientific or factually reliable evidence that anyone has to present me. If it is sound I will accept it.

However to compel me of the existence of the god as depicted in the writings by the bronze age hebrew tribes of the middle east, it would require (at very least) the type of credible evidence provided in Elio's murder suspect scenario.

All we can do is state our own views and ask that you present alternative views along with everything which you regard as evidence for your position.

A fact many theists fail to understand is I do not need evidence for my position.

The lack of any factually reliable evidence for the existence of god is in itself, evidence for my position.

My position is akin to the atooth fairiests position, or the aunicornists position.
What type evidence would you expect them to provide to support their positions???

My position is not a choice. It is the theists precarious position that creates mine.

But for the record, If you want to label me, I prefer "seeker."

 

[Elioenai26]

Hello crimsonleaf

I understand and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and "proof" thank you.

I'm not asking for proof.

I will happily, willingly even, examine any credible scientific or factually reliable evidence that anyone has to present me. If it is sound I will accept it.

However to compel me of the existence of the god as depicted in the writings by the bronze age hebrew tribes of the middle east, it would require (at very least) the type of credible evidence provided in Elio's murder suspect scenario.




A fact many theists fail to understand is I do not need evidence for my position.

The lack of any factually reliable evidence for the existence of god is in itself, evidence for my position.

My position is akin to the atooth fairiests position, or the aunicornists position.
What type evidence would you expect them to provide to support their positions???

My position is not a choice. It is the theists precarious position that creates mine.

But for the record, If you want to label me, I prefer "seeker."

Do you want there to be a God?

You see Sectio, I wish to speak with you frankly and plainly, just as I have done with Wiccan Child, who has yet to respond to my questions.

I would like to strip away all the fluff, and all of the extraneous and miscellaneous rationalizations and reasonings, and words and big phrases and cut to the heart of the matter.

Do you want there to be a God?

Would you be happy and joyful if presented with compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible?

Or would you be resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so wrong your entire life because all along you thought you were right and that those silly "Christian religious folks" were so wrong...

To save face, you might even say....: "Well, of course I would be happy if I found out that God existed and of course I would not be angry or resentful...

You see my friend, we can say anything we want on this internet forum to keep ourselves from appearing to be fools....

Who wants to have their world come crashing down and then have to on top of that, admit that they were so wrong?

Pride would prevent many atheists, nontheists, or whatever you wanna call them from confessing that they were so wrong about the most important subject in life.

So ultimately my friend, this is not a matter about me being right and you being wrong or vice versa, this is a matter of you looking in the mirror at yourself and knowing what your true motives and desires are regarding this matter....

I believe if you are brutally honest....you will confess, like Thomas Nagel, that you simply do not want a world with God in it....

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Do you want there to be a God?

Elio I have no reason for a "want" but it would be nice to "know" without a doubt of its existence.

You see Sectio, I wish to speak with you frankly and plainly, just as I have done with Wiccan Child, who has yet to respond to my questions.

I would like to strip away all the fluff, and all of the extraneous and miscellaneous rationalizations and reasonings, and words and big phrases and cut to the heart of the matter.

Do you want there to be a God?

Would you be happy and joyful if presented with compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible?

Elio, I am happy and joyful regardless, this is more evident since abandoning the depressing and confusing worldview of Christianity.

Or would you be resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so wrong your entire life because all along you thought you were right and that those silly "Christian religious folks" were so wrong...

I was a devout Christian most my life, so yes you could say in a small way I am resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so confused and deceived for too long.

To save face, you might even say....: "Well, of course I would be happy if I found out that God existed and of course I would not be angry or resentful...

To save face? "Well, of course I would be happy if I found out that God existed " would be my honest and sincere response Elio.
I fail to comprehend what "anger and resentment" have to do with realising the existence of god(s) for certain from the atheists perspective. Your putting words in my mouth here.
It would indeed make more sense for anger and resentment from the theists position of realising the absence of god(s) for certain.

You see my friend, we can say anything we want on this internet forum to keep ourselves from appearing to be fools....

Who wants to have their world come crashing down and then have to on top of that, admit that they were so wrong?

Pride would prevent many atheists, nontheists, or whatever you wanna call them from confessing that they were so wrong about the most important subject in life.

So ultimately my friend, this is not a matter about me being right and you being wrong or vice versa, this is a matter of you looking in the mirror at yourself and knowing what your true motives and desires are regarding this matter....

You are psychologically projecting yourself here again Elio, my world would be unaffected by the certain knowlege of god(s) existence or non existence. I'd be pleased to be released from the "atheist" description.

I believe if you are brutally honest....you will confess, like Thomas Nagel, that you simply do not want a world with God in it....

Seriously? It is statement's like this Elio, that nurture the common misconception (prevalent among Christians) that atheism is the denial of God. This defies the laws of logic and is intentionally deceptive.

It is the theist's position that is precarious, a position that could well be wrong.

An atheist who lacks a belief on the existence of god(s) cant actually be wrong!

Only better informed.

 

[quatona]

Do you want there to be a God?

You see Sectio, I wish to speak with you frankly and plainly, just as I have done with Wiccan Child, who has yet to respond to my questions.

I would like to strip away all the fluff, and all of the extraneous and miscellaneous rationalizations and reasonings, and words and big phrases and cut to the heart of the matter.

Do you want there to be a God?

Would you be happy and joyful if presented with compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible?

Or would you be resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so wrong your entire life because all along you thought you were right and that those silly "Christian religious folks" were so wrong...

To save face, you might even say....: "Well, of course I would be happy if I found out that God existed and of course I would not be angry or resentful...

You see my friend, we can say anything we want on this internet forum to keep ourselves from appearing to be fools....

Who wants to have their world come crashing down and then have to on top of that, admit that they were so wrong?

Pride would prevent many atheists, nontheists, or whatever you wanna call them from confessing that they were so wrong about the most important subject in life.

So ultimately my friend, this is not a matter about me being right and you being wrong or vice versa, this is a matter of you looking in the mirror at yourself and knowing what your true motives and desires are regarding this matter....

I believe if you are brutally honest....you will confess, like Thomas Nagel, that you simply do not want a world with God in it....

Projection much?

 

[quatona]

Do you want there to be a God?

No, I don´t have a desire for there being a God. I´m pretty indifferent about it.
There are many things that I have no desire to exist, and many things that I even downright wish wouldn´t exist. Doesn´t prevent me from acknowledging they are there.

As for your other "argument": No, being proven wrong is not a problem for me. The discovery of a God wouldn´t be groundshaking to me.

Both your "arguments" are fallacious, btw., but I guess you already knew this.

 

[quatona]

My point was that people do not go around asking for proof of the existence of a being in hopes that they may believe it exists and at the same time believe that such a being is "phenomenally wicked".

Yes, and the fact that they do not do it "in hopes" that such an entity exists simply shows that they aren´t doing it "in hopes". It doesn´t mean they aren´t doing it at all. If anything, it isn´t evidence for them being biased but, au contraire, for lack of a bias.

That would be like me running around asking people to please supply me with evidence that the boogeyman is real and to show me where he keeps the dead mutilated bodies of the little boys and girls he has kidnapped and tortured.

I surely would ask people to do that if they ran around telling everyone that the boogeyman is real. Even more so, if this belief would be held by a considerable portion of the population who run around proclaiming it.

Unless of course said person is just possessd of an extremely morbid and sadistic curiosity.....

But I would rather be charitable and give Wiccan Child the benefit of the doubt and say that he is not actually concerned with evidence for God at all.

In this dichotomy, you are omitting some of the possible motives a person can have for asking for evidence for a claim. Actually all of the motives that drive an intellectually honest searcher.
Not everybody´s relationship to reality is as jaded by wishful thinking as yours is (i.e. determined by looking for evidence only for the desirable - as is clearly revealed by your own lack of imagination for other approaches and motives).

I know that if given the choice between the two, I would rather be seen as one who simply does not want God to exist than to appear to be a demented, sick, morbidly curious individual who spends their time asking for evidence of a celestial tyrant....

That´s a false dichotomy, to begin with. Combined with a veiled ad hominem.