Various Commenters #dunning-kruger #fundie

Various Commenters #dunning-kruger #fundie reddit.com

(Around_the_campfire)
How can it be the case that there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods when atheists often appeal to polytheistic gods to resist apologetic arguments?

If your counter to “God caused the universe” is “What about the Greek Pantheon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”, that’s not saying that the universe isn’t evidence for a deity. That’s saying it doesn’t tell you which deity. It can still be evidence for a deity.

It’s like, you can have evidence that a thief stole something, without it also telling you who the thief is.

(NewPartyDress)
There is evidence. God is a spirit, so the evidence is spiritual. I asked Gpd to be born again and His Holy Spirit indwelled me. His amazing love enveloped me and I knew He loved me and had always known me. That was many decades ago. I have doubted many things in my life but I have never doubted that God is with me since then. My spiritual eyes were opened.

Go to God with your question. Ask Him if He is real. He wants a relationship with you.

(Beware-of-Voltaire)
I absolutely agree OP. This is just a common debate tactic where people move the goalposts to suit their agenda. Whenever it comes to that, I just stop debating because it's futile at that point.

(Anarcho-Heathen)
The polytheist gods are the true ones, and atheists are accidentally correct.

5 comments

...such as Eris, Haruhi Suzumiya, Cthulhu, JR 'Bob' Dobbs: or His Holy Sauciness The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Newsflash:

My best friend has two large framed posters on the wall of his living room: one is a printout of a section of the Large Hadron Collider a friend of his obtained at & sent to him from CERN. The other is of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As he's a long-time Church of England Christian, he 'gets' it.

...as he's an enthusiast of all things Satirical, the concept of 'Parody Religions', that is.

He's also secure in his religion that he - or his beliefs - doesn't feel threatened.

Clearly, you don't: and you aren't, thus you are. And in that order.

So I’m personally not in favor of this kind of arguments even if only for the Christian fundies who than say „see the atheists believe in the Greek gods they are satanists“ or something, which really makes me always lose some faith in humanity. But let’s see:

1. Yes it is moving the goalpost but in your favor since it’s essentially saying „ok let’s pretend an unprovable almighty thing, that never was recorded or does things that we can see is real. Show that your personal branch of crazy is right“. Which is a hell of a lot less than proving god.

2. You always want proof that no god exists (which is stupid since you can’t prove a negative especially when it’s about an almighty being which could do anything) but you never give proof and this is the core problem. Fundies and atheist stand on two sides both asking the other side for evidence. With the distinction of atheist not asserting anything and you lot asserting the existence of a very specific being which can not be explained by science and not perceived without blindly believing.

3. I find it funny that you compare god to a thief just an afterthought

“There is evidence. God is a spirit, so the evidence is spiritual. Any ‘evidence’ that God isn’t real or isn’t my God is Fake News!!!!”

"It’s like, you can have evidence that a thief stole something, without it also telling you who the thief is."

Nope. Something is missing. YOU say it's obvious it was a thief, and name the thief. WE say, it could be another person who's the thief. Or, it could be some other explanation for why we can't find it. maybe there was no thief. Maybe it just fell behind the player-piano, or under the Dieffenbach.

It's not moving goalposts to show that the evidence you cite for your God is not compelling, conclusive, or actually 'evidence.'

The "It could be a different diety." Should only be used when someone is arguing for a particular diety.

Yahweh is described in the Bible to have done certain things certain ways. If you then try to weasel out of that by saying your diety is some unprovable creative force you aren't offering a proof for your god.

Using the thief analogy, let's say Bob woke up, and couldn't find his keys. There are a few options there.
1. Bob misplaced them.
2. Bob's roommate Jim moved them, accidentally or on purpose.
3. Someone stole them.
With those options, Bob comes the conclusion that not only were they stolen, but Victor stole them, and in a certain way that left no evidence.

The argument isn't that atheists believe someone else stole the keys, it's that the "keys are missing therefore Victor pulled his Mission Impossible key theft" conclusion is a bad one with a lack of evidence.