When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Crossless2.0]

And that process of rational thought, Rhythm, will undoubtedly lead you at last to a belief -- not in a deistic god -- but in a magical Jew (oh, sorry, Son of God) who rose from the dead and loves you very much -- but might have to punish you horribly if you don't believe in him -- because some people made some claims a long time ago.  You see, it's in a book.

You know . . . reason.

Oh no, by all means, believe things concocted by a hormonally imbalanced herd of intellectually stagnant, socially inept uneducated 13-year-old basement dwelling panty-sniffing furries that call their home atheistforums.org and are mad at God because mommy dragged them to church on sundays and didn't let them play xbox.

That's reason right there. 

Or should we stop mischaracterizing people?

You got the panty-sniffing furry part right, but most here are older than thirteen and don't live in Mom's basement.

It's good to see improvement on your end.

[ApeNotKillApe]

You continue to mindlessly bark your demand for 'evidence' as if it disguises your feeble and insubstantial position as anything other than petty arrogance.

[Cyberman]

What can you expect from a one-trick pony?

[Faith No More]

All this whining about atheists is pretty tiring.

Maybe get a new trick, Delicate? I think you could use a hobby or something. I mean, one other than crying that atheists think you're a dumbass.

[Crossless2.0]

All this whining about atheists is pretty tiring.

Maybe get a new trick, Delicate?  I think you could use a hobby or something.  I mean, one other than crying that atheists think you're a dumbass.

Getting laid is always an option.

That or he can start working on growing a neck beard.

[Simon Moon]

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?

Is it a convincing reason to disbelieve in: Bigfoot, alien abductions, ancient aliens, etc?

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.

Yes, you are completely blind and ignorant to see the evidence for aliens abductions.

Here's the thing, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a Buddhist, etc, can all study QM, and do the same experiments and get the same results. The same Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist, and Buddhist can look at the evidence you claim for the existence for god, and not get the same results. Therefore, your analogy, like every other one of your arguments, fails.

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.

We have. You are just too simple minded to understand why your idea of evidence, is drastically insufficient. 

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.

No, the best thing is to send the theist to basic logic courses, and teach them what actually constitutes good evidence for existential claims.

[Delicate]

You continue to mindlessly bark your demand for 'evidence' ...

And you continue to fail to have any.

[Cyberman]

Why do we need evidence? What are we meant to be evidencing?

[ignoramus]

So what say about the any ex-religious people here who've been there and done that.

What's that? They didn't try hard enough or weren't true believers to begin with...
Aren't you tired of all these fallacies yet... I know we are.

Give it a break ...(as a good gesture of Christmas will)

[Delicate]

Read the OP. The claim that there is no evidence needs to be accompanied with adequate refutations of purported evidence. When no refutation is provided, one can fairly assume the "there is no evidence" claim is akin to a blind person denying evidence of the existence of color.