A case for strong atheism

[Roundearth]

Since I am a scientist, I thought I would respond to this. If we are willing to accept two very interesting theories about things, mainly the Big Bang theory and quantum theory, which, BTW, are “tightly coupled”, we are faced with some interesting problems about time and space. These problems can best be explained, according to the principle you have accepted in another post – mainly Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor by considering the possibility that there exist other dimensions beyond the 3 dimensions we are most familiar with.

If, for example, that which is spirit is in reality matter that exists in 4 dimensions, then there is no 3 dimensional means to prove, or for that matter, disprove such existence. I would also point out that any affect a 4 dimensional being would have on a 3 dimensional being would of necessity seem and appear “super natural” to a 3 dimensional being.

Let me apply this directly to the Big Bang theory (and our expanding universe – which interestingly is best explained as a 4 dimensional sphere) we discover that our current universe is too large for a Big Bang by several degrees of magnitude. That is, once again a principle of Ockham’s razor that containing all the energy and matter of our universe is most unlikely without the Big Bang going off prematurely. The current theory that shows the most promise is that our universe resulted from the collapse of an 11 dimensional universe.

My point is that you are being very selective and shallow in what you say you are willing to accept as possible; especially if you are touting Ockham’s razor. There is a high likelihood that there are indeed “things” that exists that cannot be explained or even conceived within the limits of our 3 dimensional physics and comprehension.

The Traveler

Although your post is highly erudite - which I respect enormously - I cannot accept your argument. It resolves the problems I'm pointing to by putting them outside proof and comprehensibility, and therefore above reason. This necessarily makes your claims arbitrary, though conceivably true. My operating principle is that my survival requires me to treat the arbitrary like the false.

(edit)

I should also point out that your post is short on details. How does matter interact with higher dimensions to produce invisible matter? Without answers, this theory still has matter being supernatural for all intents and purposes.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Roundearth

[Traveler]

Although your post is highly erudite - which I respect enormously - I cannot accept your argument. It resolves the problems I'm pointing to by putting them outside proof and comprehensibility, and therefore above reason. This necessarily makes your claims arbitrary, though conceivably true. My operating principle is that my survival requires me to treat the arbitrary like the false.

It is obvious that you do not understand my post or what you are saying - because Einstein’s theory of special relativity that purports that dimensional space is curved - does prove that our universe most likely exists as a 4 dimensional sphere.

Since it was you that brought up the principle of Ockham’s razor then I now ask you to demonstrate any likely-hood that quantum physics or the Big Bang can be better explained without the possibility of more than 4 dimensions. If you are unable or unwilling to see or understand this argument then I must assume that you are scientifically inept and incapable being educated beyond the known flaws of outdated Newtonian physics and therefore your touting of scientific arguments is fraudulent and I see no purpose or reason to continue with such nonsense.

The Traveler

[Roundearth]

It is obvious that you do not understand my post or what you are saying - because Einstein’s theory of special relativity that purports that dimensional space is curved - does prove that our universe most likely exists as a 4 dimensional sphere.

Since it was you that brought up the principle of Ockham’s razor then I now ask you to demonstrate any likely-hood that quantum physics or the Big Bang can be better explained without the possibility of more than 4 dimensions. If you are unable or unwilling to see or understand this argument then I must assume that you are scientifically inept and incapable being educated beyond the known flaws of outdated Newtonian physics and therefore your touting of scientific arguments is fraudulent and I see no purpose or reason to continue with such nonsense.

The Traveler

I understand that the universe has 4 dimensions. Fine. That's perfectly scientific.

But, I don't understand your inference from the existence of 4 dimensions to the existence (or plausibility of the existence) of the soul. The issue is not scientific illiteracy. The issue is that I don't understand your inference FROM science.

Does that make sense?

[Snow]

The first reason to be an atheist follows from the burden of proof principle.

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard / read... that because faith is faith, not proven knowledge, you shouldn't have it... besides which, it's hypocritical. The proof that God does not exist does not exist, ergo strong atheism is in the same boat.

I trust that you reject the "law" of gravity because it is not proven.

[Roundearth]

That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard / read... that because faith is faith, not proven knowledge, you shouldn't have it... besides which, it's hypocritical. The proof that God does not exist does not exist, ergo strong atheism is in the same boat.

I trust that you reject the "law" of gravity because it is not proven.

You're taking the phrase "burden of proof" too literally. It just means you should not accept anything without sufficient evidence.

[pam]

Quote:

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

Satan and Christian God are somewhat in the same boat, if at opposite ends of it.. so I"d imagine that the athiestic regard to Satan would be the same as they would to God.

Forgive me if I have missed this in the numerous pages this thread has become. But I don't see where BlackMarch's comment was responded to and I have the same question.

It was stated that Atheists usually don't worship Satan. So how would one explain a possible belief in Satan but not in God?

Edited February 28, 2010 by pam

[Roundearth]

Forgive me if I have missed this in the numerous pages this thread has become. But I don't see where BlackMarch's comment was responded to and I have the same question.

It was stated that Atheists usually don't worship Satan. So how would one explain a possible belief in Satan but not in God?

I said "usually" because well, y' never know, there might be a Satan worshipping atheist somewhere. I do not know how one would come to be a Satan worshipping atheist.

[Guest Godless]

It's always been my understanding that most Satanists don't actually worship Satan, but rather what he represents. So an atheist Satanist actually kinda makes sense.

[Snow]

You're taking the phrase "burden of proof" too literally. It just means you should not accept anything without sufficient evidence.

Yet you are a 'strong' atheist with zero evidence to support your views.

While I may not have evidence to support my belief, I derive great utility from it but you imply that I should abandon my faith, and the utility derived from it in order to take up a contrary view, also without evidence.

Please tell me:

1. Why I would be better off than I am as a believer to abandon my faith.

2. Why you think I should have evidence for my belief but you have none for yours/

[Vanhin]

I think you need to understand how this post looks from an unbeliever's perspective.

To me, this sounds a lot like: There's an invisible sort of matter in us that apparently doesn't displace normal matter at all. Only we don't know how it works, why it's invisible, why it doesn't displace the rest of our matter, or even what it's composed of exactly. Our concept of it is very loose, though, so that's okay. And it might be quantum. You can't prove it's not quantum.

I am not mocking you. I just want to show you how this looks from my perspective, so we can have more effective discussions.

To me, that is still very implausible. You would need to give rough answers to the questions indicated above before I would take this idea seriously. As far as I'm concerned, you've still got a supernatural hypothesis on your hands here.

Well the point is that we don't claim that it is supernatural, and somehow you have to deal with that when dealing with us.

Many individuals within our religious movement have been actual eye-witnesses to God, and have described Him as having a tangible body of flesh and bone. God is an actual being who exists in the real world, and He is capable of feats beyond our comprehension, such as organizing un-organized matter into worlds and populating them with plant and animal life, and placing His own children into bodies of flesh, in order for them to experience mortality. He has revealed the truth that spirit is matter to us, and that is what we believe. So, we are not like other Christians who describe God and spirit as incorporeal.

So, humor us at least, by accepting our understanding of God as the basis for your argument against God, when debating us on the matter.

1) God is an exalted immortal Man.

2) God is corporeal.

3) God has all knowledge and mastery of the laws that govern the Universe.

4) Mortal men have spirts and bodies of flesh, that are both corporeal.

It is a fact that God exists. I know it as surely as I know that I exist, because He has made himself known to me. If God can make himself known to you, wouldn't you be interested in that? Wouldn't that settle the question for you?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Yet you are a 'strong' atheist with zero evidence to support your views.

Well, most seem to agree that I've given good arguments against God. You guys may not really believe in God if they do not apply to the being you worship.

1. Why I would be better off than I am as a believer to abandon my faith.

To answer that, we have to answer a very fundamental question: how do we become happy? To that end, let's look at a couple groups of people who "should" be happy but aren't.

Rock stars should be happy, according to society: they have fame, adulation, wealth, and every form of material happiness. But they submerge their brains in incredibly destructive drugs like crack and heroin. Why? Why are the people who are on top of the world acting like their main concern is to escape from reality?

The answer is that they hate themselves. They are preaching sex and drugs to children. They have betrayed their moral standards, and they treat themselves as worthless as a result.

Again, why are some business executives unhappy? They have money, admiration, power - why are any of them not happy all of the time? The answer is, invariably, something like the fact that they wanted to go into art rather than business, but surrendered their conscious conclusions to their parents or to society at some point. They betrayed their mind, and their self esteem suffered.

Self esteem, the belief that you are valuable (self respect) and competent to cope with reality (self confidence), is one of the most important things for you. It is fundamental to all of your emotions, it has an enormous influence on your decisions and ambition, and it is the best predictor of happiness that we have. Self esteem follows from obeying your mind scrupulously, in all things. Acting against your mind, i.e. broaching your integrity, results in self-hatred, which is destructive to you. There are many forms of acting against your mind, including sacrificing your mind to your parents, your friends, or your emotions. Your life and happiness require that you never sacrifice your mind.

A Mormon, in my opinion, cannot completely live by his mind. He has to subordinate his mind to the Book of Mormon, which means to his emotions, and to the church on all issues where they conflict. From the nature of self esteem, this must damage his self esteem.

Let's take an extreme example: one of the polygamous wives that still exist in America. Ignore her existential suffering, which is extreme but does not directly impact her self respect. This person has betrayed her mind, her conscious conclusions, in exchange for an extremely unpleasant life with a man who probably does not love her very much. This person can only have minimal self respect, and certainly must have very low self esteem. The same principle applies to all decisions made on the basis of Mormonism.

2. Why you think I should have evidence for my belief but you have none for yours/

My belief, at present, is that your belief does not have enough evidence for it to warrant my believing it. Edited February 28, 2010 by Roundearth

[Snow]

Well, most seem to agree that I've given good arguments against God. You guys may not really believe in God if they do not apply to the being you worship.

What on earth does your ability to make arguments for or against God's existence have to do with God's actual existence?

Nothing.

To answer that, we have to answer a very fundamental question: how do we become happy? To that end, let's look at a couple groups of people who "should" be happy but aren't.

Rock stars should be happy, according to society: they have fame, adulation, wealth, and every form of material happiness. But they submerge their brains in incredibly destructive drugs like crack and heroin. Why? Why are the people who are on top of the world acting like their main concern is to escape from reality?

The answer is that they hate themselves. They are preaching sex and drugs to children. They have betrayed their moral standards, and they treat themselves as worthless as a result.

Again, why are some business executives unhappy? They have money, admiration, power - why are any of them not happy all of the time? The answer is, invariably, something like the fact that they wanted to go into art rather than business, but surrendered their conscious conclusions to their parents or to society at some point. They betrayed their mind, and their self esteem suffered.

Self esteem, the belief that you are valuable (self respect) and competent to cope with reality (self confidence), is one of the most important things for you. It is fundamental to all of your emotions, it has an enormous influence on your decisions and ambition, and it is the best predictor of happiness that we have. Self esteem follows from obeying your mind scrupulously, in all things. Acting against your mind, i.e. broaching your integrity, results in self-hatred, which is destructive to you. There are many forms of acting against your mind, including sacrificing your mind to your parents, your friends, or your emotions. Your life and happiness require that you never sacrifice your mind.

A Mormon, in my opinion, cannot completely live by his mind. He has to subordinate his mind to the Book of Mormon, which means to his emotions, and to the church on all issues where they conflict. From the nature of self esteem, this must damage his self esteem.

Let's take an extreme example: one of the polygamous wives that still exist in America. Ignore her existential suffering, which is extreme but does not directly impact her self respect. This person has betrayed her mind, her conscious conclusions, in exchange for an extremely unpleasant life with a man who probably does not love her very much. This person can only have minimal self respect, and certainly must have very low self esteem. The same principle applies to all decisions made on the basis of Mormonism.

Blah, blah blah.

Can you answer the question please. In what way will I be better if I abandon my faith.

My belief, at present, is that your belief does not have enough evidence for it to warrant my believing it.

Obviously you can't answer the question. I'll repeat it anyway. Why, for you, does my faith based ideology require proof but your faith based ideology does not?

[Guest Godless]

2. Why you think I should have evidence for my belief but you have none for yours/

If Vanhin's assertion of a corporeal God and Spirit is accurate, then it stands to reason that you consider these things to be as much a part of reality as the physical, tangible elements that surround us. The problem is, God isn't tangible, nor is the human soul. LDS claim to have knowledge beyond faith that these things are real, yet they can't demonstrate it. Without evidence, I can't accept these concepts as part of my worldview.

The only evidence that you have is the argument from personal experience, and I shouldn't have to lecture you on the folly of using that one. Experiences are subjective. Without tangible evidence that can be observed and evaluated objectively, there is no case for the existence of God. And without objective evidence for his existence, the default position becomes non-existence, the atheist position.

[Roundearth]

You like simple and direct. I can do simple and direct.

What on earth does your ability to make arguments for or against God's existence have to do with God's actual existence?

Nothing.

Everything. If I prove God doesn't exist, God doesn't exist.

Blah, blah blah.

Can you answer the question please. In what way will I be better if I abandon my faith.

I just did. You will have more self esteem. Your life will be better.

Obviously you can't answer the question. I'll repeat it anyway. Why, for you, does my faith based ideology require proof but your faith based ideology does not?

You're right. I don't have a "faith based ideology," so I can't answer your question.

Let's try again: "Why, for you, does Mormonism require proof but strong atheism does not?"

Simple. Ask yourself how you know there aren't unicorns.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Roundearth

[Vanhin]

If Vanhin's assertion of a corporeal God and Spirit is accurate, then it stands to reason that you consider these things to be as much a part of reality as the physical, tangible elements that surround us. The problem is, God isn't tangible, nor is the human soul. LDS claim to have knowledge beyond faith that these things are real, yet they can't demonstrate it. Without evidence, I can't accept these concepts as part of my worldview.

The only evidence that you have is the argument from personal experience, and I shouldn't have to lecture you on the folly of using that one. Experiences are subjective. Without tangible evidence that can be observed and evaluated objectively, there is no case for the existence of God. And without objective evidence for his existence, the default position becomes non-existence, the atheist position.

How can you seriously argue that I (or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the existence of God in order for him to exist?

For reasons that may not be apparent to you right now, in most cases, God chooses to reveal himself to only those who exert faith in him. There are cases where God has revealed himself to people outside this criteria, such as Saul in the New Testament, and Alma the younger in the Book of Mormon. In both of those cases God made himself known to individuals who were seeking to destroy the church, and were not seeking to find out for themselves any kind of truth about God. But, for the most part, to have God make himself known to you, you must exercise even the slightest bit of faith in him.

Faith, or even a desire to have faith, as uneasy as it may seem to atheists, is the method for receiving a sure witness from God of his existence. It is what He has always required, and for good reason (which I am more than willing to explain should anyone want me to), and unless we show the evidence of our faith to him, we will not receive the proof.

As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". If you refuse to eat the pudding, you will never know what it tastes like. Spiritual experience is like taste. I can tell you the pudding is good, and even attempt to describe it to you based on other things that you have tasted. But unless you pick up the spoon and put some pudding in your mouth, you will never really know for yourself what it tastes like. Of course, the existence of God is more consequential than the taste of pudding.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 28, 2010 by Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Well the point is that we don't claim that it is supernatural, and somehow you have to deal with that when dealing with us.

That's true. It seems like the debate goes back to what it is for something to be supernatural at that point. I think a supernatural thing is one that violates its own nature.

Many individuals within our religious movement have been actual eye-witnesses to God, and have described Him as having a tangible body of flesh and bone. God is an actual being who exists in the real world, and He is capable of feats beyond our comprehension, such as organizing un-organized matter into worlds and populating them with plant and animal life, and placing His own children into bodies of flesh, in order for them to experience mortality. He has revealed the truth that spirit is matter to us, and that is what we believe. So, we are not like other Christians who describe God and spirit as incorporeal.

So, humor us at least, by accepting our understanding of God as the basis for your argument against God, when debating us on the matter.

1) God is an exalted immortal Man.

2) God is corporeal.

3) God has all knowledge and mastery of the laws that govern the Universe.

4) Mortal men have spirts and bodies of flesh, that are both corporeal.

That makes sense and I will try to conform to your definition in future discussions. I think there are some problems with that definition, but this isn't really the place for them.

It is a fact that God exists. I know it as surely as I know that I exist, because He has made himself known to me. If God can make himself known to you, wouldn't you be interested in that? Wouldn't that settle the question for you?

That would settle the question.

[pam]

My two cents worth for what it's worth. It all comes down to a mutual respect for each side and for each other. Respect for those of us who do believe in a God and the faith that many of us have that there is one. Respect for those that question that belief and faith. We could argue all day long about proof from both sides but really where does that get us?

I believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is a God. I don't expect everyone to hold the same thought that I do and I can surely respect that. I have two friends on this site who are atheists and I adore them both.

[Vanhin]

It is a fact that God exists. I know it as surely as I know that I exist, because He has made himself known to me. If God can make himself known to you, wouldn't you be interested in that? Wouldn't that settle the question for you?

That would settle the question.

Thanks, I will tell you what you must do to find out for sure the existence of God, though I don't pretend to be able to command God in determining the time frame and nature of the witness. If I could command God to make himself known to you, then I would posses the ability to demonstrate proof of his existence. But I cannot do that, and therefore it is a road that you must choose and travel on your own.

But before I do, I would like to know your analysis of the following passages from our scripture. Just click on the link -> Alma 32:17-43. If you would be willing to read that, and let me know what you think about it, it would surely help me explain the instructions to you.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest Godless]

How can you seriously argue that I (or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the existence of God in order for him to exist?

The assertion that a corporeal God exists is a positive claim that doesn't conform to the physical reality that most people know. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the believers. I met Santa Clause once. But I wouldn't expect you to believe me unless I could provide evidence, which I've attached at the bottom of this post.

My worldview operates under the assumption that God does not exist. If evidence for his existence can't be presented, then in my eyes he does not exist. You claim to have evidence, but you can't demonstrate it objectively for the benefit of the unbelievers.

For reasons that may not be apparent to you right now, in most cases, God chooses to reveal himself to only those who exert faith in him. There are cases where God has revealed himself to people outside this criteria, such as Saul in the New Testament, and Alma the younger in the Book of Mormon. In both of those cases God made himself known to individuals who were seeking to destroy the church, and were not seeking to find out for themselves any kind of truth about God. But, for the most part, to have God make himself known to you, you must exercise even the slightest bit of faith in him.

Faith, or even a desire to have faith, as uneasy as it may seem to atheists, is the method for receiving a sure witness from God of his existence. It is what He has always required, and for good reason (which I am more than willing to explain should anyone want me to), and unless we show the evidence of our faith to him, we will not receive the proof.

As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". If you refuse to eat the pudding, you will never know what it tastes like. Spiritual experience is like taste. I can tell you the pudding is good, and even attempt to describe it to you based on other things that you have tasted. But unless you pick up the spoon and put some pudding in your mouth, you will never really know for yourself what it tastes like. Of course, the existence of God is more consequential than the taste of pudding.

Regards,

Vanhin

I was fed the "pudding" for 18 years. I exercised as much faith as I could and came up empty. See, I have evidence from personal experience too. And I wouldn't blame you in the least for finding it to be lacking of real substance. :)

[Vanhin]

The assertion that a corporeal God exists is a positive claim that doesn't conform to the physical reality that most people know. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the believers. I met Santa Clause once. But I wouldn't expect you to believe me unless I could provide evidence, which I've attached at the bottom of this post.

My worldview operates under the assumption that God does not exist. If evidence for his existence can't be presented, then in my eyes he does not exist. You claim to have evidence, but you can't demonstrate it objectively for the benefit of the unbelievers.

I think you are wrong as far as evidence is concerned. There is plenty of evidence for God in nature. My witness of God's reality is evidence as well. I may not be able to prove it to you. But I can show you how to gain the proof.

I was fed the "pudding" for 18 years. I exercised as much faith as I could and came up empty. See, I have evidence from personal experience too. And I wouldn't blame you in the least for finding it to be lacking of real substance. :)

I hear you brother. I have been "eating" the pudding of my own free will for 28 years, and I have not come up empty. In fact, I now know, beyond faith, that God exists. Having endured the trial of faith necessary for such a witness, I can tell you that my knowledge cannot be had in any other way at this point in time. However, the time is forthcoming when God will make himself known to all the inhabitants of the earth in a great display of power and glory. For now, He allows us the protection of faith.

So, what did the pudding taste like?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Dravin]

I met Santa Clause once. But I wouldn't expect you to believe me unless I could provide evidence, which I've attached at the bottom of this post.

Expectation of belief and existence are two things though. God either exists or he doesn't independent of any evidence for such. If Santa Clause did indeed exist then your ability or inability to prove such is irrelevant to the reality of that existence. What it is relevant to is your ability to persuade others or yourself into believing or not believing in that existence. Take for instance plate tectonics, lets say I was able to destroy all evidence and knowledge about the theory. Do plate tectonics no longer happen? Or the inverse, I am able to fabricate evidence that Hephaestus is indeed the source of volcanoes and earthquakes, does this make it so? Of course not, plate tectonics happen regardless of our knowledge of them, likewise God exists or does not independent of our knowledge of him.

Now obviously we've reached different conclusions based on what we consider the available evidence, and so we chose to believe based on that evidence, separate conclusions. But mine or your conclusion is correct independent of that evidence and the conclusions we've drawn from it. If you meant to imply that you won't believe, or we shouldn't expect others to believe if we cannot provide evidence for our assertions that's reasonable. But I think Vahin was reading an argumentum ad ignorantiam* out of your comments.

* Probably the most common one in religious discussion.

[personne]

Cette carte est censée être ouverte à la discussion de tous les sujets, donc je vais poster cela ici.

Je suis un athée forte. C'est, je crois qu'il n'y a pas de Dieu. (Un athée faibles omet tout simplement d'affirmer l'existence de Dieu.) Dans ce thread, je défendrai cette position avec des arguments brièvement, puis solliciter des arguments contre mes arguments et contre l'athéisme fort. J'espère pouvoir affiner mes aptitudes à la pensée critique et à apprendre de vous les gars.

Mon cas pour l'athéisme forte repose sur le principe d'identité. A est A. Une chose est elle-même. La loi de l'identité est une proposition évidente, et sert de base de toute connaissance. De le nier, est donc de se contredire. Il est d'affirmer que l'on est à droite [/ I] de nier la loi d'identité - et non raison et tort à la fois. La loi d'identité a deux corollaires: d'abord, que tout agit en conformité avec sa nature. En second lieu, que, pour exister, c'est être définis.

Mais j'ai fait toute la conversation. Votre tour. Pour quelles raisons avez-vous pour penser que Dieu existe? [/ QUOTE]

Greeting, at a moment of my life I became an atheist, good I did not understand that a God of love can provoke grave consequences. Since I emets reserves so much in the existence of a God. I say it height I hate my religion. What we say. Normally I should not. I should like. But... He makes miracles...., and I had the proof that 1+1= 3,

[marshac]

How does matter interact with higher dimensions to produce invisible matter? Without answers, this theory still has matter being supernatural for all intents and purposes.

Einstein showed that matter and energy are interchangeable with the famous E=MC^2 equation. Additionally, a single photon shot through a single-slit still results in interference patterns- one explanation for this phenomenon is that it's actually interfering with photons in another universe. And since energy and matter are interchangeable, there you have it- one affecting the other according to one theory. Granted, you're talking dimensions, and I just threw out the word 'universe'.

Gravity is another example of a (probably) multidimensional force- the fact that it spans additional dimensions is one hypothesis for its relative weakness compared to the other forces.

[marshac]

I was fed the "pudding" for 18 years.

You mean green jello, right?

[Snow]

You like simple and direct. I can do simple and direct.

Everything. If I prove God doesn't exist, God doesn't exist.

You (anyone) can't even prove law of gravity let alone prove that God does or does not exist. Let's stay grounded in reality. All you can provide are logical arguments and you ability to do so has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

I just did.

False - you did no such thing. You simply pontificated some straw-man nonsense. Why can you not support your contentions?

You will have more self esteem. Your life will be better.

Stupid remark. Try and focus.

You're right. I don't have a "faith based ideology," so I can't answer your question.

False - and dishonest. You have zero proof of your ideology, that God does not exist. All you have is faith, as your obvious lack of the provision of such proof clearly demonstrates.

Let's try again: "Why, for you, does Mormonism require proof but strong atheism does not?"

Nonsensical questions won't get you very far. I don't think Mormonism or atheism require proof. It is your failure to apply the same standard to your own beliefs as you apply to mine that is at issue.

Simple. Ask yourself how you know there aren't unicorns.

Asking rhetorical questions is CLEARLY not the the same as providing evidence for your belief. It may impress the kiddies but won't fly here.