(December 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Cato Wrote: Fucking dolt. I already handed you your ass on this in the other thread. I'll repeat the argument anyway.

Evidence for QM exists regardless of any individual's ignorance. The evidence is made available and is repeatable for any and all to see and participate in if they so choose. The same cannot be said for supposed evidence for god. If there was one shred of evidence it would be made known immediately for all to see. The fact that instead of demonstrating said evidence you choose to say that we are too blind to see suggests you have absolutely nothing.

There is also no such thing as theistic evidence. You've got nothing but bullshit arguments that setup some type of ignorant quandary in which to insert your notion of god. It's ridiculous, it's not evidence. You cannot define or argue your deity into existence.

You expect me to take this bullshit seriously?

No, no one expects you to. You're beyond hope.

(December 25, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's easy to look at this post as post hoc rationalizing.

And the arguments for God you're so enamored with aren't? What a moron.

*sigh* dregs of intellectual rigor and honesty as exampled through the OP.

We're in the 21st century and we still have to deal with the trolls.

2/10 for effort, comprised entirely of the number of posts but not the content.

You're crediting him with 20%? You're exceedingly generous!

(December 26, 2015 at 8:17 am)Stimbo Wrote: [...]exceedingly[...]

Mmm... that word just makes me think of cakes and apple pies.

It's not everyone who gets a Kipling reference.

(December 26, 2015 at 9:41 am)Stimbo Wrote: It's not everyone who gets a Kipling reference.

You could tell I did though

Yummy.

(December 26, 2015 at 8:05 am)Cato Wrote:

(December 25, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's easy to look at this post as post hoc rationalizing.

And the arguments for God you're so enamored with aren't? What a moron.

Given that you are the lead atheist evangelist of moronism on this forum, I'm flattered that you would take me to be part of your club. But no thanks.

As for the arguments for God you take to be post hoc rationalization, I can think of several that don't seem to be the case. 

But I invite you to explain exactly on what basis you think they fall under that category.

(December 25, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Jörmungandr 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.

(December 15, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Delicate Wrote: There's a lot to say about the evidence, and how it's supposed to sit with Christian theism.

But here's a taste: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosop...uments.pdf

If all your 'evidence' consists of obscure philosophical arguments, it's no big surprise that the majority of simple atheists have little experience or competence rebutting said arguments.  That you think being an atheist burdens one with a duty to refute obscure philosophical arguments only points to you as the one with the competence problem.  Perhaps Plantinga gives us the most direct rebuttal of your claims of the irrationality of atheists on page one of your cited arguments, and I quote: "These arguments are not coercive in the sense that every person is obliged to accept their premises on pain of irrationality."  Maybe if you'd bothered to read your own source you wouldn't have made such preposterous claims.

When Theists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for Atheist Irrationality?

I would definitely watch episode 1 of your program, Jorg.

(December 25, 2015 at 6:48 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(December 25, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Delicate Wrote: And yet you've spent hours of your life posting on an atheist forum.

LOL.

The cognitive dissonance is palpable here.

I missed the part of this thread where you gave your reasons for rejecting the definition of atheism can you repeat the reasons again?

I won't be able to tell if your reasons cut the mustard or not otherwise.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1150315

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149301

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149299