Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

The question is "does God exist?", not "which God is He?". The new atheists wish to redefine the definition of atheism to make atheism the default position and not have to justify their position. That is the difference in argumentation.

"I had never given your objection any thought. Now that I find myself in the position of looking like an absolute moron I'm going to attempt to steer the discussion back to my list of prepared points that I believe to be unassailable, as always."

You cannot be both an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic has no reason to believe God exists, that is true. He also has no reason to disbelieve Gods existence. An atheist is saying he does have a reason, therefore you are no longer agnostic on the existence of God, and are just plainly an atheist.

Correction, no one has any reason to believe in god. Because bad reasons are exactly the same as no reasons at all with regards to truth claims. An atheist is not only saying that he has reasons, but is exhibiting a thing called reason. You're exhibiting a thing called wishful thinking.

The grand assumption of science is uniformity in nature. Science cannot be done unless it is assumed that what happened in the past will happen again in the future. There is no way to account for uniformity in nature in a secular worldview without a vicious circularity. Uniformity in nature is best explained by God.

Nothing in the entirety of human experience is "best explained by god". God isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for not having an explanation.

I have faith that God is who He says He is. If it is all just same grand illusion to mess with us, then there is nothing I can do about it. The only logical move is to have faith that God is truthful. There aren't any contradictions in the bible, just things easily misunderstood by people without spiritual discernment.

The only logical move then, allows for any faith whatsoever. Making your thinly veiled wager full of shit, again. "Spiritual discernment" must mean the ability to keep a straight face whilst spouting complete bullshit. There are no contradictions in Dracula either, and? You see, even if your claim as to the bibles lack of contradiction were true it means exactly nothing.

The only way you could be certain about anything is if you were omnipotent, or you received revelation from an omnipotent being. If you can admit that revelation from an omnipotent being is a logical pathway to certainty, then you will understand why I am certain about the knowledge I have. You have no actual basis in your worldview for knowing anything for certain. You cannot account for the laws of logic, which must be absolute, immaterial and unchanging. This makes no sense in a materialist worldview, because we live in a material universe which is constantly changing. It is best accounted for in a Christian worldview.

"You cannot account for, you cannot account for!" The "christian worldview" is one of ignorance, which accounts for nothing save it's own ignorance (by reference to it's source).

You're talking about a Universal negative. I can say we're all in a giant egg inside a cosmic chicken and the reason the Universe is so dark is because we haven't hatched yet. I could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all your memories are false. You couldn't disprove that either. You can invent any story you like, but this has no parity with claims made by Christianity. It makes many predictions and descriptions; it is a worldview, which means it is falsifiable.

A worldview that has been falsified, repeatedly.

The point is, from the millions of Gods, there are only a few candidates that make creation claims, which we can then match to the evidence.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mythology that doesn't have a creation story, which is where most mythologies tend to attempt to draw their authority from in the first place (yours included). With regards to your creation story, we have matched it to the evidence, it doesn't fit. You would very much like for it to fit, and thats why you've left the rez and found charlatans willing to lie through their teeth in order to prop up a tired fairy tale. Well, have fun with that, forcing yourself to ignore reality can't be easy.

All it does is stifle debate, and is a form of bullying. Thoughtful people don't use it, or need it.

As is repeating worthless arguments over and over again, or attempting to dominate the topic or terms of a discussion, or evading the responses of others by swiftly moving on to the next talking point your holy man provided you with. "Thoughful people" don't advocate ignorance, as you have made a habit of doing. I don't have any confidence that you would have even the slightest inkling of what "thoughtful people" might do. You aren't such a person.

There is no doubt that atheism is primarily anti-christian. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. None of the other Gods have any authority, but to Jesus every knee will bow. Everyone who rejects God is rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ.

Correction, christ is a fairy tale. My knee isn't bowed, because I reject the "authority" of fairy tales. What you mean to say here is "Everyone should bow to my beliefs". Well, thanks but no thanks, your beliefs are far too petty and irrelevant for me. But feel free to bow to whatever you like with your own knees.

You won't go to hell for rejecting the God that you don't know. You will go to hell for rejecting the God that you do know, and are suppressing the truth about.

Good, because I don't know anything about any god in reality, the only thing I know anything about are fairy tales. So I guess I'm safe on that count. You might want to crack open a book and get an idea as to which group of people does any sort of "suppressing" between the religious and the reasonable.

You know that God exists, and you know who He is. You're rejecting Him now.

Believe that she, like I, know what you would like to claim about god. That's what we're rejecting. Your myth, your fairy tale, your interpretation. In short, everything that you've posted thusfar is repugnant if only for it's abject stupidity (and many times for other reasons as well). It's your bullshit that's being rejected, and unless you're willing to demonstrate that god appointed you his official mouthpiece (and provided you with the secrets of the cosmos), you should probably stop making him sound like a douche and take credit for the god you've created as a mirror of your own horrid personality.

You do, and you are suppressing the truth.

You don't, and you are suppressing the truth.

There is no evidence for macro evolution. Feel free to provide any at any time.

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

Garbage as expected, I didn't see any evidence for your own claims here, just canned response that has been annihilated (just like your narrative) every time it's been offered up.

What's most telling about you is that you approved of this post which said I should go kill myself:

"Tape a bag of porridge to your face, suffocate yourself, and rid humanity of your poisonous and perverted 'understanding' of the endeavour we are currently taking to comprehend the cosmos for all I care:" - Welsh Cake, using classic atheist argumentation

I'd rather you educated yourself beyond the bounds of your fairy tale. If you can't do that then maybe we are better off without you and yours muddying the waters. Still, I'd rather you go live in a cave where you can't cause damage to other's minds, rather than offing yourself(take the rest of the religious with you, if you go, please).