(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

I am an atheist because there is no god. (the reason for lack of evidence)

(December 16, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 16, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Delicate Wrote: Between taking those tests and today, did you hit your head at some time?

How else can you expect to mischaracterize an argument so badly?

So, like, can we ever expect you to understand the difference between an insult and an argument? Because grandstanding ad hominems do not a cogent point make.

Actually, he just admitted what he said was satire. He wasn't asking for, or providing an argument.

And the cogent points were made in the paper. What's left is for someone here to try and take a stab at them.

(December 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 11:22 pm)Delicate Wrote: The "credible" part leaves room for these intellectually dishonest conmen to move the goalposts. You won't see a prior, coherent, rigorous definition of credible from them, which they will consistently apply to their claims.

You won't see a prior definition of "god" that makes sense from theists, yet you're not complaining about that. If you care this much about intellectual honesty, perhaps you should show some yourself.

I'm not complaining because it's not true.

The definitions of God I've seen taken seriously are perfectly coherent. What makes you think they make no sense might be a cognitive disability on your part, not a problem with the definition.

Just sayin'.

PS- If you want to defend your claim, you're welcome to demonstrate how a philosophically-informed definition of God makes no sense.

(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: The contents of this message are hidden because Delicate is on your ignore list.

I've finally found a way to make Delicate's posts appear moderately intelligent.

(December 19, 2015 at 6:02 am)robvalue Wrote: If some people actually have a method of communication with this "God" character like they claim, why does nothing useful or even interesting ever come of it?

If there was a group of people who refused to believe one of my friends was real, despite what I considered to be obvious evidence that he was in fact real, I wouldn't care. Why should I? I'd feel no need to go to forums full of such people and present massive arguments why my friend does in fact exist. If I know they exist, then that would be good enough for me.

If a group of people refused to believe one of your friends didn't exist, and their reasons for disbelief were absolutely moronic, wouldn't you be curious to understand how these people function?

(December 20, 2015 at 10:06 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: The contents of this message are hidden because Delicate is on your ignore list.

I've finally found a way to make Delicate's posts appear moderately intelligent.

You lucky thing.

(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence. 

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

Obviously this thread involves some sort of personal argument since I can see that the first posts involve statements like "You fucking dolt bullshit raaaaaaggghghghg ...."

Anyway my personal response to this is that I don't say that because I can't see proof of god this god doesn't exist.

All I say is that I see no evidence of god therefore I reject any belief in god.  I think god and religions are manmade constructs.

There might be something out there we have no proof of, it might even be a god, but I just see no proof of it.

(December 20, 2015 at 10:47 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence. 

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

Obviously this thread involves some sort of personal argument since I can see that the first posts involve statements like "You fucking dolt bullshit raaaaaaggghghghg ...."

Atheist rage bro. LOL it's like you drew an Atheist Mohammed.

Atheist rage? Much like your rage when it comes to all gods apart from one, Delicate?

(December 20, 2015 at 11:04 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 20, 2015 at 10:47 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Obviously this thread involves some sort of personal argument since I can see that the first posts involve statements like "You fucking dolt bullshit raaaaaaggghghghg ...."

Atheist rage bro. LOL it's like you drew an Atheist Mohammed.

Do you have any thoughts on my response?