I recently watched Alex O'Connor's debate with two Muslims and as expected they used the usual philosophical arguments like the cosmological and ontological.
As I was watching, I finally realised something. If god exists and wants us to go to heaven, and if we don't accept god we will end up in hell, and god loves us, then why God doesn't reveal himself in most profound ways? Why is he hiding, jeopardising so many souls that might end up in hell?
So to me, the arguments have no space here. You have arguments because you have no evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need arguments.
Atheists say we suspend judgement on the existence of gods until evidence is provided, proving us otherwise. Which bit theists don't understand?
Also, all these arguments, to me, prove nothing. We might as well be in a crazy simulation, we might be an intergalactic asylum etc. Theist arguments start with the assumption-need for a god to exist, thus they are extremely limited.
This is exactly why I simply stopped "listening" to the arguments for or against the existence of any god. It became a waste of time for me simply because there's just NO EVIDENCE for either side. Of the two, the atheist position is the most logical and reflective of reality itself. One doesn't worry about the existence of a unicorn or bigfoot if no evidence for the actual existence these creatures can be had; and god(s) are the same type of made-up creature. I personally don't worry about it anymore, nor do I waste my time arguing with believers about it. People are going to believe what they want, especially a god, against evidence no matter what anyone tells them because they have an infantile view of the world and themselves; and this belief of the "sky daddy" is like a cherished child's blanket. That's a hard thing to fight, especially in an adult that stopped believing in Santa, but can't stop believing in jeebuz. Again, it's infantile and I don't have time for it.
It's called the "Argument From Hiddenness" or from "Non-Belief", and is one of the strongest arguments against personal gods. Such arguments come at the issue from a variety of angles, and theists have a variety of counter arguments. Of course none of the justifications are convincing to me, but if you're interested in exploring it further, there are dozens of youtube videos on the topic, both pro and con.
It is kind of like saying, "I really love you with all of my heart, you just have to look beyond all the cruel actions I happen to undertake!" That is the Geeeezzzzuuuusssss shit for you.
Flying Spaghetti Monster 2:02:
Religion is the oldest money-making scam, probably even older than prostitution . . . . prostitution is seedy, but it isn't a scam like religion, it's about as honest as it gets.
Yeah, those kinds of debates always felt pointless because they don't even start off agreeing on which text should be the common source of truth before interpreting reality or discussing policy on common grounds. If we can't even agree on the source of truth then the debate will always end with a version of "well your book of truth is full of crap".
Quite right, if an omnipotent god wanted me to believe in him, then I would. That's what omnipotent means. There'd be no need for evidence or argument, God could just will me to believe. And I don't. So clearly if God exists in that sense, he happy for me not to believe, and so am I. Don't see why anybody else should be upset with what I believe or don't believe if even God's evidently cool with it.
Correct. Believers arguments for a god to exist start with a need for a god to exist. I've always thought that if a god existed he would cure all those poor kids at St. Jude who have cancer. Then I realized that it is all the sins of the fathers doing this. Besides, the founder of St. Jude was a Catholic. That just about does it for Baptists and Evangelicals.
Asking "why don't XXX do this or that?" when XXX isn't there to respond for themselves is at best an exercise in our imagination and at worst a fool's errand. Either way, there is no truth to be found in this question or this answer except whatever personal truth we wish to adopt
With that disclaimer in place, my imagination seeds the fool's errand thusly:
I'd say for the same reason a teacher doesn't give the answers to their students. By giving the answers to the students instead of them figuring them out for themselves, the students haven't learned anything and taking a test to test that knowledge becomes an exercise in memory, not knowledge.
Likewise, by revealing themselves to us, Gods make the decision to go to heaven a foregone conclusion instead of a decision we make ourselves based on our experiences on Earth. As such, we really haven't learned anything, as individuals or a society, and when the test comes it becomes an exercise in memory (remembering God(s) revealed themselves) and not a true test of our morality.
You just say. "No, god prefers atheists/agnostic, and sends them to heaven while religious people go to hell. Because atheist/agnostics show good critical judgment not insulting him by thinking he will value blind faith, don't tell him what to do, and don't set up fake gods in his place. Now prove me wrong !"