Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Asmodee]

You are missing the point. In practice, "no evidence" really means "the evidence presented does not support the conclusion." Theists can present all kinds of evidence. Some evidence is very poor, like seeing the face of Jesus in a Pancake or "the Bible sez". Some are better, like fine-tuning or just the fact that science works.

It is just exacerbating that you have no idea what is wrong with these statements. I'll try to explain it, not that you want to understand my explanation.

First of all, by "evidence" I am making the assumption that you are saying, at least in the broadest sense, "Evidence for the existence of some, but not necessarily a particular deity". That's giving you the benefit of doubt there.

Now, let's look at fine tuning. Does that constitute evidence for the existence of some deity? No, it does not. In fact, it's not "evidence" of anything. It's an argument, and properly argued it's not even an argument for the existence of a deity. The argument is that the universe and the life in it requires such a narrow set of variables to exist as we know it that the universe could only have been "fine tuned" for that life to arise. First of all, it's a shit argument. It already presumes that life was an intended consequence of the universe, and specifically life as we know it. It presumes that life was a necessary outcome. In short, it presumes a deity designed everything with the intended outcome and, if the outcome was intended, the universe must have been fine tuned to achieve that outcome and, since the universe was fine tuned to achieve the outcome, some deity exists. AT BEST it is circular logic. But it's not even that good, and here's why. It's called the "fine tuning" argument because the arguer is attempting to give evidence that the universe was fine tuned. NOT evidence that there is some deity, JUST evidence that the universe is fine tuned. IF you prove that the universe is fine tuned THEN you have evidence for the existence of a deity. But you cannot because, like all garbage arguments, "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not objective. It's not scientific. It's just another shit logical argument which you can never, ever, ever prove because there is no evidence for it, it's just another one of your beliefs.

Now on to the fact that science works. Really? The universe obeys known laws, therefore God? We have had intelligent conversations. You are not that stupid.

Evidence means that which is evident, a simple observation. it's evident to anyone that the pancake looks like Jesus but for most people that's no reason suppose a miracle happened. It's evident to anyone that the physical universe appears to be designed but whether or not that is actually so requires careful study and thinking. Design evidence is something a reasonable person could accept even if ultimately it's not correct.[/qoute]
You have really lowered the bar there with your definition of "evidence". Evident is the ROOT WORD, NOT the definition. The two are not the same. Evidence is the available body of "facts", NOT "simple observation".

IT IS NOT evident to "anyone" that the physical universe appears to be designed. What "appears to be" IS NOT SCIENCE! It is subjective shit, ANOTHER belief. What "evidence" do you have that the universe "appears to be designed"? Simple. Just look at it. It "APPEARS TO BE designed" to me. Your BELIEF is the "evidence" that your claim is true. Again this is circular logic. It "appears to be" designed TO YOU and those who agree with you. And THIS is evidence for some deity? HOW??? You still haven't shown that the universe IS designed! You're making a claim and using that claim as "evidence" to support a second, UNRELATED claim! IF the universe is designed THEN it's "evidence" to support the existence of a deity. You must FIRST provide evidence that the universe is designed sufficient to convince people who don't already believe it, but the only "evidence" you have of that is, "It looks that way to me".

[quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1493900' dateline='1485281971']
Now you may think you have knock-down objections and refutations for why every piece of evidence (that which is evident) doesn't support the proposition that god exists.

I sure do! You've mis-defined the word "evidence" to lower the bar and NONE of your arguments are actually arguments for the existence of ANY deity, much less some specific deity. You are arguing that DESIGN is real, not that God is real. Or you are arguing that FINE TUNING is real, not that God is real. IF they are real THEN they are "evidence" for a deity. But YOU CAN NOT use an argument that one thing is real as "evidence" that a second, unrelated thing is real!

And you may be right. Does that mean that all of them are equally unreasonable?

Yes! It does! All of these things are beliefs! They are all EXACTLY the same, no matter how you dress them up or confuse them by changing definitions and quietly switching the targets.

I don't think so. Shouldn't you hold the person who justifies their belief on something plausible in higher regard than another who justifies their belief with blind faith? I think we should.[/qoute]
That's the thing. These things are not "plausible", you just think they are. They have been refuted countless times in countless ways by countless people. You've never even realized that the fine tuning argument is an "argument for fine tuning", NOT "evidence God". You can't even tell the difference between evidence and argument, thinking the two identical. And that utterly destroys all credibility these arguments have. If you feel the need to lower the bar by redefining words and artificially inflate the importance of what you're saying by confusing the subject, you just have shit. If you can't give an honest argument that you, yourself, can and have honestly evaluated then you just have shit.

[quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1493900' dateline='1485281971']
The tooth fairy comparison basically says that every justification is faulty (that's fine if you believe that) and they are all silly (a step too far.)

But it's not. These things ARE silly. These arguments are simple mental gymnastics where "evidence" and "belief" are confused as being that same thing and God is a moving target that is always moved directly in the path so you can't miss.

I don't think it is too much to say that what someone believes and why he believes it reflects either positively or negatively on him. Saying that someone hold's silly beliefs for stupid reasons is an indirect judgement of that person.

So what? We all judge each other all the time. We have since childhood, we will until the day we die. Welcome to the human race. It's about time you get used to being here.