# Explain this Atheist logic to me. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589 "2009-08-25T02:42:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/81 "2009-08-25T14:19:26Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The definition: “faith 3. a level of assurance held by the credulous in outrageous propositions unsubstantiated by facts” is really a misuse of the term You may view it as a misuse, but it’s the common definition of “faith” in a religious context. In my experience, anytime a theist is questioned about evidence for his belief, he’ll always be backed up into the position “you just have to have faith” - meaning you have to believe without evidence. The other definition of “faith,” as in trust of a person you know, is very different and doesn’t really apply to religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/82 "2009-08-25T15:13:17Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did you read my post? I gave you an example of something it may want that explicitly is based on you not knowing what it wants. That is an example that doesn’t require it to make anything clear. And you still think your argument is airtight? Thats’ fine , but I’m talking about the presumption that it wants me to _believe it exists._ It has no right to demand that I believe it exists without TELLING me that it exists. Even if it does exist, any worship or affection it might want would still have to be earned separately, and it would have a LOT of explaining to do. > [@](#): > > Why do you assume he wants you to know what he wants? You realize you are assuming that, right? It’s not _my_ assumption. It’s what I’m constantly told by proselytizing theists. I’m just taking religious doctrines at face value. If God doesn’t want me to believe he exists, then nothing I’m saying matters. If he does want me to believe he exists then he nees to prove it. > [@](#): > > You are not very logical. > > 1. Douchebags do exist > 2. A God that is a douchebag has as much chance of existing as one that is not (as far as any of us know). But God is supposed to be all good. If God is a douchebag, then he’s not really God. He’s something else. > [@](#): > > If he doesn’t want to tell you because his goal explicitly hinges on you not knowing, then I would think you would care about his goal. This makes no sense at all. Why should I care about his goal if I don’t know he exists? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/83 "2009-08-25T15:21:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They want proof of God. So, they can then choose to have faith. > > Yeah, makes no sense. It’s one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. You misunderstand. The issue is that we have no use for “faith” under _any_ circumstance. We’re saying that it’s asinine for God to demand faith at all. I don’t have any faith in faith. I want to KNOW, not “have faith.” ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/84 "2009-08-25T15:28:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Let me note that many disagree with this statement, but it’s really the only classification that doesn’t make atheism and agnosticism largely overlap. Agnosticism is a statement abut logic. It is about whether you think there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion. Atheism is a statement about belief. It is about what you believe regardless of the evidence. I am both agnostic (because I don’t think there is enough evidence to settle the matter one way or another) and atheist (because I don’t believe in the existence of God/Gods.) One could also be an agnostic theist. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/85 "2009-08-25T15:33:33Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So, what was the point of The Bible or any other ‘holy records’, if god’s point wasn’t to make his presence known? As I’ve said for a while, if believing in a god was anything but a man-made thing, it would be as natural as breathing in air. My only argument is that you can’t judge a theoretical god based on a human context. A perfect being with perfect intelligence and wisdom and unknown goals is simply not something we can say “should behave this or that way”. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/86 "2009-08-25T15:35:04Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Um, actually yes, because DtC says so - since he specified that if God wants something from _ **him** _. No, that’s ridiculous. It’s entirely possible god wants something from DtC without ever showing it’s cards. Is that not a distinct possibility in the set of possibilities? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/87 "2009-08-25T15:39:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you’re missing the point. Sure you can say “what if this” or “what if the other thing,” but the point is that there are infinitely many possibilities, and zero evidence for any of them. How can someone pick one and run with it as if it’s the Truth? No, I’m not missing the point at all. My point is simple: It is not possible to infer the proper actions of a perfect being with perfect intelligence, wisdom and unknown goals. I simply think it doesn’t make sense to argue logically one way or the other about gods behavior, it doesn’t make sense. It can’t be part of your proof for non-existence or existence because we have no clue what that perfect being might or might not do. It’s simply not logical. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/88 "2009-08-25T15:39:55Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Here, forget what I said before. Start with this: > > If someone is going to do good, it is best if they are doing good for the sake of doing good, and not for some other reason. Why? What difference does it make? > [@](#): > > Fear of punishment, anticipation of reward, desire to win, and other such motivations make it difficult for a person to do good for its own sake. Doesn’t this contradict most religious assumptions? Wouldn’t this scenario require that virtually all revealed religious paradigms be wrong? > [@](#): > > If God’s existence were obvious, such motivations would be very strong in those to whom his existence is obvious. It does not necessarily follow that the existence of God means that he has to dish out punishment and reward. If God really wants people to be good for its own sake, then the best thing to do would be to make it directly known that he will NOT give out any punishment or reward. Make it _impossible_ to be good with any expectation of reward. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/89 "2009-08-25T15:40:33Z")
Jesus did many miracles, and in terms of turning people to God it didn’t seem to really make too much difference, I believe he expressed disappointment or even frustration to that as a possible interpretation of the gospels. He also states: Luke 16:31 "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ Which is a pretty big sign, but if they are unwilling to listen to the word they will not accept it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/90 "2009-08-25T15:44:55Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > My only argument is that you can’t judge a theoretical god based on a human context. A perfect being with perfect intelligence and wisdom and unknown goals is simply not something we can say “should behave this or that way”. Sure we can. If we are asked to assume it possesses a certain set of attributes, we can assertain whether those attributes are logically compatible with the observable universe. “Mysterious Ways” is a cop out. And not for nothing, but doesn’t Abrahamic reloigion say that we’re _supposed_ to judge God? We’re supposed to love it, right? We’re supposed to think it’s good, and awesome and perfect, right? Are those not judgements? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/91 "2009-08-25T15:46:31Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > No, that’s ridiculous. It’s entirely possible god wants something from DtC without ever showing it’s cards. > > Is that not a distinct possibility in the set of possibilities? If it wants me to _believe it exists_, it has to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/92 "2009-08-25T15:47:47Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Jesus did many miracles Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/93 "2009-08-25T15:47:53Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > You may view it as a misuse, but it’s the common definition of “faith” in a religious context. In my experience, anytime a theist is questioned about evidence for his belief, he’ll always be backed up into the position “you just have to have faith” - meaning you have to believe without evidence. > > The other definition of “faith,” as in trust of a person you know, is very different and doesn’t really apply to religious belief. “Common usage” doesn’t make something correct. That’s the common view among people who are not believers, theists, who discuss the question. But, like a group of Republicans in 2004 discussing Iraqi WMDs, what they may think does not necessarily comport with what the facts are. My faith is in Someone whom I know – and only secondarily a summary of alleged truths about Him and His relationship to humans. This thread is about why, if He exists, He doesn’t give objective evidence of Himself, and my answer was in relation to that topic question. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/94 "2009-08-25T15:50:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? Oh, come now! You want a list of citations from the four Gospels? You may not buy into the historical validity of those accounts, any more than the Timaeus and Kritias prove the objective existence of Atlantis, but they’re legitimate cites to be adduced in support of a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/95 "2009-08-25T15:52:42Z")
They can be adduced in support of a personal belief, not as objective, factual data in a debate over the very question of whether we have evidence for God. ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/96 "2009-08-25T15:56:48Z")
> [@TNWPsycho](#): > > I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day. > > “ **If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.** ” > > I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo? Rubbish. The concept of ‘God’ connotes an _omni-entity_ that is above all things, period, including the human construct known as ‘vanity’. To want to “make Himself known” suggest a desire to be recognised, acknowledged, in turn praised, worshiped… et cetera. This is narcissism. This directly contradicts the idea of ‘God’. The quintessence of the concept of ‘God’ is an entity that transcends all that we as sentient human beings know and understand **and** that which we do not. Stipulating what He “would” or wouldn’t [do] flies in the face of the very notion of what ‘God’ is supposed to be/represent. Hence, for example, the contradictory ridiculousness of martyrdom – the supposition that HE wants us to die for him! Thus, ‘God’ (if there is such a ‘thing’ :rolleyes:) by _it’s_ very nature cannot be known or understood, let alone be bound by human constructs. As such, the pursuit in trying to grasp what God wants or what He wants from us, or whether ‘wanting’ even comes into the equation, is self-stultifying. -Apathetic Agnostic. ~\_~ ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/97 "2009-08-25T16:56:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > No, that’s ridiculous. It’s entirely possible god wants something from DtC without ever showing it’s cards. > > Is that not a distinct possibility in the set of possibilities? So you are suggesting that God wants something from DtC, yet knows that unless he shows his cards that he will never get what he wants from DtC? This is supposed to be an omniscient/omnipotent god, correct? If so, please define what you mean by ‘want’. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/98 "2009-08-25T18:36:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s pretty simple. If God wants people to believe in him, then it’s strange that refuses to give the slightest shred of evidence that he exists. I’m an atheist, but I disagree with this. This part of religious faith is completely understandable to me: it’s the very \*point \*of faith. Otherwise, you’re kind of insisting that your god should be emcompassable by your human mind. Frankly, if I \*were \*likely to worship a god, I’d rather worship one that’s beyond my understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/99 "2009-08-25T18:54:20Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m agnostic, but I don’t exactly understand what you mean here. If there is a God (and I don’t particularly care) I don’t understand why it would necessarily make itself known. Perhaps it’s a God in the deist “watchmaker” model. Perhaps it’s a Romantic pantheistic god. Why would the existence of a God necessarily compel itself to be known? Or are we only talking God in the Judeo-Christian sense? The watchmaker god is nothing more than a remote possibility that really doesn’t explain anything. It certainly doesn’t make any practical difference to belief or disbelief in one. _On the other hand_, the typically promoted god is some entity that has a direct influence in the world, **and** in one way or the other _cares_ how people behave. It’s pretty obvious to me that it’s beneficial to know if such an entity exists, and it seems also pretty likely that such a god would make itself known in a fairly straightforward manner. I’m quite sure that such a god does not exist, given the lack of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/100 "2009-08-25T19:03:24Z")
Responding only to the original question. The argument assumes that what God wants is for me to have the same apprehension of his being that I have of magnetic fields,or distant astronomical bodies. It fails logically, on so many points that it is beneath criticism. If, on the other hand what God wants is for me go experience love of the holy spirit of the person of the universe, then proof is an impediment. Evidence is not all physical, not all logical, not all reproducible. Science is a tool for understanding that which manifests in the physical world. If you need proof, you do not seek faith. If you find proof, you do not need faith. I don’t have faith in a God who would make Himself unavailable to me in spirit to get better press. Tris [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589.md?page=6)