It might be the viewpoint of some atheists, it’s not really a unified thing, it’s just the position of questioning if there is a god.
It is also a poisoned straw man of a religious mind, deeply dishonest and manipulative.
In the case of the deadbeat father, you can look around and see that most other children have two parents, and you can reasonably conclude that you should too. When looking closer you’ll notice that not all children have fathers though, and with even further study you’ll learn that some children don’t even need a father (IVF only requires a donor, cloning not even that), and you can reasonably conclude that you probably had a father, but can’t never be totally sure.
In the case of the god claim, we’ve never seen any god, nor anything needing a god, and upon closer study, we even find that there’s almost no room for a god to act within. It’s not just that it’s a deadbeat god, no one has ever seen any god, nor evidence or need of one, and that’s where the oop position becomes delusional.
We have however found many mechanisms for which the mind would like to invent a god, we can even reliably make a mind invent a god, and we’ve also found many god claims to have been disproven. If you’d met a person who’d been provably wrong on every important point they’ve ever claimed, would you believe them to be right about the next claim? When would you start asking them to do the homework to prove their claim before listening to the next one?
It might be the viewpoint of some atheists, it’s not really a unified thing, it’s just the position of questioning if there is a god.
It is also a poisoned straw man of a religious mind, deeply dishonest and manipulative.
In the case of the deadbeat father, you can look around and see that most other children have two parents, and you can reasonably conclude that you should too. When looking closer you’ll notice that not all children have fathers though, and with even further study you’ll learn that some children don’t even need a father (IVF only requires a donor, cloning not even that), and you can reasonably conclude that you probably had a father, but can’t never be totally sure.
In the case of the god claim, we’ve never seen any god, nor anything needing a god, and upon closer study, we even find that there’s almost no room for a god to act within. It’s not just that it’s a deadbeat god, no one has ever seen any god, nor evidence or need of one, and that’s where the oop position becomes delusional.
We have however found many mechanisms for which the mind would like to invent a god, we can even reliably make a mind invent a god, and we’ve also found many god claims to have been disproven. If you’d met a person who’d been provably wrong on every important point they’ve ever claimed, would you believe them to be right about the next claim? When would you start asking them to do the homework to prove their claim before listening to the next one?