Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Joods]

I love it when my questions go on ignored by christians. Makes my point so much more! "Oh yes! We're going to ignore that one so we don't have to actually answer anything."

[Aractus]

No one ignored you, get over yourself.

[athrock]

That was annoying as fuck.

Oh, good! Then it was effective in illustrating just how annoying the braying of "NO EVIDENCE" can be.

Look, I'm not arguing the merits of the evidence. That's a separate problem for theists. But NO EVIDENCE?

That's patently absurd. Skeptics would find their time better spent on analyzing and countering the very real and very potent evidence rather than simply dismissing it out of hand because that evidence - which some claim to be non-existent - has won over a few billion people down through the millennia.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't invest any time, money or energy into confirming my non-belief. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In my short time here, I get the impression that some folks here are actively not believing in a mythical god waaaaaay more than I'm not believing in a mythical creature.

Atheism, as practiced by some anyway, is clearly a whole lot more than a simple "lack of belief".

When believers in unicorns organize, aggressively proselytize on behalf of their belief, indoctrinate children into their belief, attempt to obstruct proper education in science and history, and seek to effect changes in society of which some I think are harmful then I'll push back against them, just as I do against believers in the mythical god of the Bible. It's disingenuous of you to pretend you don't understand that difference up front.

[Edwardo Piet]

No one ignored you, get over yourself.

Don't be a dick.

[Mr.wizard]

That was annoying as fuck.

Oh, good! Then it was effective in illustrating just how annoying the braying of "NO EVIDENCE" can be.

Look, I'm not arguing the merits of the evidence. That's a separate problem for theists. But NO EVIDENCE?

That's patently absurd. Skeptics would find their time better spent on analyzing and countering the very real and very potent evidence rather than simply dismissing it out of hand because that evidence - which some claim to be non-existent - has won over a few billion people down through the millennia.

You have evidence of a god?

[athrock]

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence.

What is it?

The topic is too big to cover even briefly, but I did start a thread on the moral argument (in the Atheism forum) which is a standard logical argument used to prove the existence of a supreme being. I'm interested to here input as to why that argument does or does not work.

Not too many theists have contributed to the discussion so far (maybe I posted in the wrong forum), but the arguments against haven't been all that strong so far. 

In my subjective opinion, of course. 

[Joods]

Telling me in a post to get over myself all the while you could have actually addressed my post makes you look like a dickweed.

[Edwardo Piet]

He kind of is one it seems. Very selective responses.

[Whateverist]

Poor evidence if you ask me. One could pretty much substitute God with the cosmos in many of those arguments, and that would make the arguments more parsimonious. Also, such arguments tend to not be based on pure logic, but on biased interpretations of current scientific observations (or even making shit up and calling it scientific).

Exactly. And that is why I don't like to argue over what is essentially a black box.