It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
What if God chooses not to show up that way? Why isn't people's experiences enough evidence.
What experiences? That they've never seen him, or heard him, or gotten an e-mail from him? Of all the millions of people that claim to talk to Yahweh everyday, why aren't there a group of them who know what he wants without a preacher telling them what to think that he wants?
You don't need a preacher. People know God who don't go to church too.
And they are all convinced that he's rooting for their favorite NASCAR driver as well - why aren't they aware of the fact that he is either rooting for only one of them, or really doesn't give a shit?
No one is really answering my original question.
I don't believe in your god because you don't even know which god you believe in. I've read the bible and it talks about multiple gods, multiple concepts of gods, it contradicts itself, the authors obviously didn't have a clue just how big the cosmos was (proving they weren't being inspired by its maker), and then when trying to understand why it was so horribly wrong and contradictory I found out when many of the books were written and got a much better idea about who wrote them.
There is no way for you to understand this, however, because your brain is infected with an illness called religion. It's sad really. If you were my dog I would have you put down.
The answer to your original question is: NO.
That's why we have different religions. People from different religions have the same evidence.. They all have their holy writings and history. They all have their miracles, They have answered prayers, They have communion and connection, .... at least they believe that they have all these things.
That is all the evidence they need for their particular version and interpretation of God. There are yogi's who have the phenomenalogical experience of leaving their bodies and rising up through the various stages and levels of heaven. What are some other religions assertions from an ancient book compared to that? THEIR experiences confirm their beliefs from their own ancient books.
The Hindu trinity is just as valid as the Christian trinity. What kind of evidence did it take for you not to accept it? What kind of evidence would it take for you to switch your view from Christian to Hindu? What about Sikhism? etc..? I'm guessing that you probably couldn't even consider the question seriously. Are you really asking the question or are you fighting FOR your particular answer?
A completely honest theist would have an open mind about the definition of god and leave it open to new interpretation, new information etc... They wouldn't let themselves become bogged down by one particular version over all others. Theists looking for God as a possibility would have an open ended definition of what that might be and they wouldn't have any fear of changing it when new information came to light.
We don't have very many honest theists looking for the possibility of god.. We have mostly closed-minded theists fighting FOR ancient definitions of a particular deity who are too scared to seriously question anything for fear of the answers.
(I posted earlier on one of the later pages of this discussion, some of this is repeated there)
Here is why: because (according to you), our very souls are at stake. Wouldn't it be a very malevolent being indeed, that demanded unquestioning believe it its existence, yet denied the people that asked for it even the slightest shred of evidence on pain of torture for all eternity? Not only that, but he allows MOUNTAINS of evidence against his very existence to be available to anyone who thinks for themselves. That not just nonsensical, it's completely ridiculous.
I think what you're trying to say here is that we should require no proof at all to believe in God, especially because faith is by nature sort of diminished when you try to empiricize it.
Stepping away from your original accusatory tone, then, the point is most people on this forum like to think critically, and so we can tell you from experience that when you really explore these issues logically, they fall apart at the seams. So my response is that whether or not I require proof is a non-issue, because the proof does not exist. (the Bible and Jesus coming are not proof- see that link I posted to the page on "begging the question.")
I think what you're trying to say here is that we should require no proof at all to believe in God,
No. I'm saying that it seems to me like you easily reject the evidence that DOES exist on his existence.
It's sad really. If you were my dog I would have you put down.
That is a really poor arguement. Insulting me is a bit low, don't you think?