Here’s the thing: I haven’t heard all claims on the question and never will.
Are you saying the question has been proven beyond doubt? That disbelief is entirely unreasonable, as if I said that I disbelieve water is dihydrogen monoxide?
I am not convinced by the evidence I’ve heard on the matter. Indeed, to me, the evidence is not credible. As such, I don’t believe the conclusion.
I’ll ask you a question–in particular, when you speak of evidence here, are you arguing for Christianity or theism in general? We atheists are hardly alone on this planet in not accepting the claims of Christianity.
I suppose it is possible there are atheists who say “I disbelieve in God even though I accept that there is evidence for God is true” but I have never run across that sort of person.
Nor have I. It’s a contradictory position.
They all put the mantle of rationality on their own shoulders and say that the reason they lack belief is there is a lack of evidence. And of course no evidence is ever enough.
This is more how I see it. For various reasons I won’t bore you with here, the idea of gods is not convincing to me in general. I have heard a lot of reasons for belief from different people. I accept that you find those reasons convincing. I simply don’t. I don’t claim to understand the ultimate nature of our reality. I don’t think anyone on our planet does understand it either. As I see it, there’s plenty of room for you to have your beliefs on the matter and for I to have mine.
The last one I talked to in person, great guy, I may hire him if I get this next project I am in the running for, waived past all the evidence I presented. Finally I asked him if he would accept the truth of God’s existence if an angel appeared in the room with us and told him it was all true. He responded that he would assume that he was having a psychotic episode. Yet he continued to insist that the reason for his disbelief was a lack of evidence.
And he’s right. You’re making the assertion that God exists here. If the evidence that you present isn’t convincing to me, then I don’t believe your assertion because of a lack of convincing evidence.
I think there could be evidence that would convince me. I would go so far as to say that if God wanted to do so, it should be trivial for him. Like your friend though, an angel in a room telling me the truth might well not cut it.
What I don’t accept is that the lack of belief is due to a lack of evidence or knowabilty. Sure there is enough room to avoid the conclusion if they want to hide from it hard enough, but that’s a choice. It is not a conclusion they are compelled to make by the evidence but rather a choice about what to believe about the evidence that they make.
Maybe some theists and atheists have made a choice in this regard, but I haven’t. I simply haven’t been convinced by the evidence. It doesn’t matter if there’s an endless stream of it if it isn’t convincing to me in its character. As far as I’m concerned, it’s still a lack of evidence, convincing evidence. To illustrate (I’m not doing this to characterize your evidence but to explain the dynamics of the situation) if you need money and I give you a penny three times a day, will you still claim to lack money? Maybe a penny to me seems like a million dollars, but only you know how much money you need.
I guess I am coming back to this idea of “owning it”. If they want to mess with the definitions I guess I can deal with it, but I reject what appears to be the goal they have with the definition-shifting- placing themselves on the seat of reason and by doing so excluding theists, all the while taking umbrage when someone claims atheists think they have “a monopoly on truth” on the question of the existence of God.
I say I’m an atheist, how much more do I have to own it? I don’t believe your claims, so I’m an atheist. I don’t claim to have all (or even any of) the answers about what’s really going on in reality, and I’m not making any kind of claim to all reason. So if someone says I claim to have a “monopoly on truth”, I do take umbrage with that. I understand many of the reasons for believing. If you think I have to agree with them in order to think they’re reasonable, I don’t know what to say. It’s abundantly clear that many people who seem absolutely reasonable to me do believe. That may be the most convincing evidence of God that I’m aware of actually.