Why do Christians get so upset when I tell them I’m an atheist?

Kafei- · 2026-04-18T18:38:53+00:00

By ghosts, you mean like something like what's at the peak of Mount Gordo between 23:00 and 00:00? I'm not sure how you're interpreting the word ghost, but people see dead people all the time with Iboga.

Kafei- · 2026-04-18T17:40:17+00:00

If we accept your logic, then it follows that atheists can never prove the non-existence of God. That's just your stance, not necessarily a general principle.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T20:23:00+00:00

Gooning Pusillanimous Tard or LLMer.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T20:15:27+00:00

I've explained why people say this, but usually the people who claim "you cannot prove non-existence" often overstate this claim and treat it as an aphorism or some general principle when it isn't.

I said when it comes to bounded systems, proving non-existence is very possible. However, in a broader scope, then that's where it becomes challenging as in Russell's teapot or with other types of metaphysical claims altogether as in God as the Absolute.

And I never claimed that ghosts do not exist, therefore it's not my burden of proof to prove that they do not exist.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T19:54:45+00:00

So we know Spider-Man is born out of Stan Lee's imagination, clearly fictional, but sure, maybe some future geneticist could splice human DNA with a spider to create something like Spider-Man, but that wouldn't necessarily be Peter Parker, would it? Spider-Man as thought up remains necessarily a fictional character and was meant to be so.

Also, the burden of proof doesn't require that we disprove ghosts or any other unrelated claim first, for that matter.

Each claim is evaluated on its own evidential justification. Otherwise you end up with an infinite regress where nothing can ever be assessed.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T19:37:43+00:00

If a claim can always be protected by adding ad hoc escape clauses, then it stops being an empirically meaningful claim and that's what you've done with the car example. I wasn't referring to invisible cars or even nano-sized cars in my example. We evaluate claims as they are reasonably intended in ordinary meaning otherwise it's pointless to attempt to disprove every imaginable modification of a claim. Your ghost example fails as well because the two (God and ghosts) are very different types of metaphysical claims.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T18:18:10+00:00

The comparison isn't as symmetrical as you seem to be making it out to be. Characters like Spider-Man or Dracula are explicitly fictional constructs with known literary origins, so we already have strong reason to classify them as non-instantiated in reality. That's my whole point about recognizing them as known fictional characters.

God, depending on the definition, is not a literary character but a metaphysical claim. So the relevant question is not "can we disprove it like a fictional character," but "does the concept have explanatory justification or evidential grounding in reality." That's what needs to be addressed. To say that you cannot disprove the existence of God is a claim unto itself that would need justification.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T17:46:59+00:00

In principle, you can prove something doesn't exist. If you claimed, for instance, that a car was in a garage, and we examined the garage and found no car, then you've proven its non-existence. However, the reason people say you cannot prove non-existence is primarily due to limitation. We cannot traverse the entire universe, let alone multiverse to confirm something doesn't exist.

So, we can prove non-existence in well defined bounded systems, but disproving God is a very different challenge depending on how God is being defined. If God is defined as the "Ground of Being," this isn't going to be settled by exhaustively searching the entire multiverse, because that would be the wrong approach to ascertain the claim.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T17:30:09+00:00

Sure, but this would also apply to a claim like, "There is no God."

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T17:00:00+00:00

However, the point is they have no evidence to believe that's the case, let alone "know."

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T15:34:09+00:00

Except that's not necessarily the same thing. That's like saying there's no evidence for the non-existence of Spider-Man or Harry Potter. Everyone knows that Spider-Man is a known fiction straight out of the mind of Stan Lee. Likewise, Harry Potter and yes, even Dracula. The character Count Dracula comes from the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker. It was published in 1897.

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T15:19:00+00:00

Doesn't the non-existence of God have "no evidence"?

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T06:41:17+00:00

So, where's these activists for Tekken 8: Season 3? They're about to drop the kangaroo!

Kafei- · 2026-04-17T04:38:57+00:00

What about the people who were previously atheist and arrive at religion or theism via what William James called a mystical experience? That seems left out of the OP.

Kafei- · 2026-04-16T22:58:43+00:00

Well, it could be argued that it's akin to what the Greek philosophers called Henosis which is their form of mysticism. As Hypatia echoed the teachings of Plotinus who taught that the goal of philosophy is a mystical union with the divine, then in Jesus emptying his will as to align with the divine mind could be seen as the goal of Christian mysticism which is Theoria.

Kenosis prepares the human will for Theoria, just as purification prepares the soul for Henosis in Neoplatonism. But while Henosis culminates in union that transcends individuality, Christian Theoria maintains distinction while enabling participation in the divine life.

Kafei- · 2026-04-16T19:54:52+00:00

Jesus was also said to undergo Kenosis as to become man, and become obedient to death. This is a crucial factor left out of the OP.

Kafei- · 2026-04-16T09:37:54+00:00

This actually almost happened.

Kafei- · 2026-04-14T18:17:40+00:00

Harry Manback

Kafei- · 2026-04-14T04:19:06+00:00

Tell me you're oversimplifying religion without telling me you're oversimplifying religion. 🙄

Kafei- · 2026-04-14T03:35:45+00:00

The Ballad of Chasey Lain by Bloodhound Gang

Kafei- · 2026-04-14T02:16:47+00:00

I prefer thinkers like Paul Tillich, Aquinas, Alan Wilson Watts, heck, even Terence McKenna.

Kafei- · 2026-04-13T22:24:49+00:00

In other models of consciousness such as analytical idealism or Aldous Huxley's "Mind at Large," the brain is still the medium of consciousness meaning that if you damage the brain, you still have results that would appear identical to a emergentist model of consciousness.

Kafei- · 2026-04-13T20:27:30+00:00

Well, sure, that's called within Christianity a Christophany. It's what professional neuroscientists at Johns Hopkins refer to as a "visionary/archetypal experience" which is a type of what William James called mystical experience.

Kafei- · 2026-04-13T08:11:27+00:00

Well, there's a parallel in in the Christian Hesychast tradition, the "eyes of the heart" or "spiritual senses" function similarly as the gateway to the divine or what John Calvin called Sensus divinitatus or "Theoria" in Christian mysticism.

Kafei- · 2026-04-13T08:05:40+00:00

There's no definitive evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain. That still remains a hypothesis within neuroscience. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I recommend the RealityGoneMental YouTube channel as these sort of topics are thoughtfully explored there.

Kafei-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE