Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Thumpalumpacus]

What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.

The formal name for this logical fallacy is poisoning the well. Go loook it up so that you'll understand the problem, and then stop practicing it -- or quoting shitty articles that peddle it.

And here we come to the point of THIS thread...if there is no evidence that can falsify atheism, then it is not based on science; it is a faith position.

There is evidence that can falsify strong atheism ... you just don't have it. In order to cover up that deficiency, you point at atheists and shout, "Yabut you are based on faith!" ... all the while hoping that no one notices that you have no evidence.

Never mind the fact that agnostic atheists like myself make no claim as to the existence of god(s). I make no assertions about god(s); I only make assertions about my lack of faith.

You have a nice day, now. Bless your heart.