Why do so many online atheists simply not know how to present the most basic of cases for the alleged non-existence of God?

[Siri137]

Most of them aren't even familiar with the terminology that theologians often use (ex. necessity vs contingency). Instead of reading books like 'The God Delusion', which isn't even in the top fifty to be recommended as far as I'm concerned, they should actually make use of that curiosity about the world around them they believe they have, and read a real book about the topic, like 'The Mind of God', by the well-known physicist Paul Davies. He at least knows what he's talking about, even if you find yourself not agreeing with him.

[slatyb]

The case o is simple. There's no evidence that God exists, and believers never present any. All they do is make up complex circular arguments trying to baffle us wth the same non-argiments we have already rejected. Science works. Religion doesn't.

Even if I were to accept that the universe was created by some external entity, so what? There's still no evidence for a personal God, no evidence supporting any religious dogma.

[TotallyAlmost]

Most "atheists" are just angry people bred into the warped victim/oppressor ideology, and they preach their atheism to piss people off for their own validation. Our I could be generalizing 😉

[purplepoppy]

There is no debate. Religion has existed for thousands of years, has millions of follower, yet not one has ever produced a shred of evidence for gods existence.

The entire God argument is based on the illogical fallacy of if you can't explain everything then good must exist.

[Siri137]

You may have noticed that the question isn't about the "evidence", proof or anything else there may be for God's existence, but why so many internet atheists (especially, in my experience, on YouTube) who don't even understand what the debate is even all about in the first place. Besides, what, in your view, would constitute "evidence" for the existence of God? In other words, what would actually convince you, what would turn you away from atheism?

[collie22]

I've heard the argument why dose God let bad things happen. I think there just repeating things someone said not a thought out argument

[Siri137]

Exactly

[Summeroflove]

I think these atheists want to convince someone else they’re right so they can feel like they are right.



It’s odd. How they say Christian’s are forcing themselves on them just for simply living their lives. But they want to covert the world

[jshm2]

The same reason thieves don't really know how to do business.

There are no such things as atheists. You can only be a theist, a theist living in denial, agnostic or a bullshitter.

[Siri137]

I'm starting to think that you may be right about there not really being any real atheists, just ones who pretend they are.
I don't mean to sound judgmental here about this, but it is strange how so many of them think so highly of their own level of intelligence, which I think is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Many of them apparently also have a form of autism which, again, I'm not condemning them for, simply pointing it out, because this condition and variations of it have a real impact upon one's ability to accept certain abstract propositions (like God).

[FunkyMonkee]

Where's the proof it exists?

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

Epicurus

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MRCtE63-_zA

[Siri137]

I'll answer these questions.
Q1 - The problem of the existence of evil is only a problem in the first place if one assumes that God is also omnibenevolent, which is something I don't really accept. If we assume that God is, for example, so far above and beyond what we can imagine, and is therefore utterly indifferent to questions of right and wrong, good and evil and so on (ex. the Deist conception) then this isn't an issue. Not omnipotent because He/She/It doesn't do anything about evil? That's a non sequitur.
Q 2 - Is He able but not willing? No, it doesn't therefore follow that He's evil, or malevolent. When you come across ants on the ground, what do you do? Don't you just ignore them? Does the biologist who sees microbes under his microscope actually "care" about them, and wonder what they're feeling, or whether or not they're receiving justice? Of course not.
Q3 - Is He both able and willing? He isn't willing, because He doesn't care. It's not part of His plan, whatever that plan is, and we're not in any position to work out what that may be.
Q4 - Is He neither able nor willing? I've already addressed this.

[Siri137]

By the way, Matt Delahunty is exactly the type of person I had in mind when I asked my question here. The guy is a clown. Sorry, but he's an intellectual midget, a nobody. I'd run rings around that guy in any debate.

[FunkyMonkee]

RIGHT!! That's why he rips the shit out of anyone of you nuts that call him up with proof of your god.
I dare you to try!! Call him up and debate him! When he posts the video of you being ripped to shreds, I wanna see it!!

[Siri137]

Um... did you watch the clip? You know, the one that YOU posted here? He gets callers to his show who are clearly intellectually handicapped, and he does this on purpose because he's a lightweight, he's someone who doesn't like to be challenged. The old woman on the line is clearly confused, hasn't thought through her position properly, and was completely unprepared for the encounter.

[Siri137]

I wouldn't waste my time with someone like him, someone who just does this for entertainment purposes, but if I did call I'd challenge the entire demand for proof that atheists so often like to raise. I'd ask him, among other things, what his idea of "proof" (which, by the way, is an inappropriate demand to make anyway, since "proof" is a purely mathematical concept, unlike "evidence", but nevermind) would be, and if presented with such it would actually be taken into fair consideration by him. I wouldn't go onto his show claiming to be able to prove God's existence, because that would be a non-starter, it would get me nowhere.
I would also ask him to what extent he actually understood the generally-accepted, philosophical and theological concept of what God actually is. Too many of these self-proclaimed atheists seem to believe that theists believe in some kind of invisible 'Sky-Daddy' who sits on a golden throne in the sky, when nothing could be further from the truth in the vast majority of cases.

[FunkyMonkee]

`Cause you can't win!
DO tell us of your proof/evidence that god exists!!

[Siri137]

If I did, would you even bother to read it before responding? What, in your view, would constitute evidence for the existence of God? Do you accept the possibility that something may be real in spite of there being little, or no, evidence for it? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as the old cliche goes, and don't for one minute assume here that I'm "admitting" there's no evidence for God; I'm just pointing out a pertinent fact.
Do you also understand that the question of God's existence isn't one that science is actually able to tackle, due to the very real (and useful) requirement that it tackle only those problems for which there are answers that can be observed and measured? That is, it only deals with questions concerning physical reality, and that if there is anything beyond this it's a hopeless tool to use.

[FunkyMonkee]

I read all your other stuff.
A picture, a visit, fool Penn & Teller, turn my water into root beer, take a walk across my swimming pool, cure disease, kill my greedy ex-sisters, especially the one that pretends to live and breathe the bible, and give ME all the money she stole from mom that belonged to me!! Give me retribution and reparations from all the scammers that stole all of my aunt's money
You're SUPPOSED to be PROVIDING evidence for it!
If god exists, it IS physical!! How can something that's NOT physical take something that is (a handful of dirt) and create something out of it (a human)?

[Siri137]

I don't have to be doing anything. If I believe in God and you don't, I just don't care. Your lack of belief isn't going to affect me personally, until such time that people like yourself try to convince the weak-minded among us that the issue has been settled, and that because of this we should begin the process of marginalising those of us who remain to be convinced by your lame arguments.
"If God exists He's physical", you say. To that I say, "No, that can't possibly be, because in that case God isn't God, but just another aspect of nature".
You see, I was right. You people simply have NO idea what the hell you're going on about. And by the way, did I at any point here claim to be a Christian? No, so why are you going on about using a "handful of dirt" to create the first human (the Genesis story)? I don't accept the stories of Genesis interpreted literally. I believe they're symbolic.

[FunkyMonkee]

As I suspected! No proof, only lame excuses!!
What created god?
When did I ever mention anything about christians?
I don't believe anything in Genesis, either! It, like the rest of the bible,. is all bullshit!
Looks like I win, again!

[Agape93]

Because they learned their talking points through meme and YouTube videos, and have no basic structure to display their views and why they have them. It's just empty rhetoric.