Perhaps God has been proven to exist and certain atheists just disregard the proof because it goes against their worldview. Or they could make themselves think that the proof is not good enough.
Or perhaps god isn't actually real, and certain theists just interpret books and events in the world as if they were the result of the presence of the divine in order to match up with their worldview. Or they could make themselves think that the case supporting the existence of god is actually good enough.
I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains the varying, sometimes mutually-exclusive, descriptions of god that are so prevalent in the world today? I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains how their can be such variety in the nature of the divine? I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains why there is such a variety of holy books circulating about?
If there were one billion a-sun-ists in the world, and they were a-sun-ists because the existence of the sun goes against their worldview, or they've convinced themselves that they need more evidence of the sun's existence before accepting that the sun does, in fact, exist, how many different interpretations of what the sun actually is
do you think there would be among the other 6 billion sun-ists? Do you think that there'd be several sects that believed the sun produced heat via a large coal deposit, several that believed the sun emitted radiation via thermonuclear fusion, sects that believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, other still that believe that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west while another ground believes that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west?
What better explains the vast and disparate descriptions of god? The actual existence of a god that some people just reject, or the non-existence of a god that some people just pretend to think is real?
Perhaps some atheists just disregard the 'proof' because it goes against their worldview. But I think it more likely that the 'proof' is disregarded because it really, really sounds like the people presenting these 'proofs' don't know what they're talking about
. Especially the ones that present us with ironclad and covered in gold
arguments and respond with silence
when people start actually scrutinizing those arguments