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

[Cyberman]

The claim "there is no evidence" is not a typical one outside of theist strawmen. The claim, such as it is, that person x has not yet seen credible, compelling evidence, however, is.

[Bard A Madsen]

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.

I saw another one of your threads about atheists not knowing anything about religion and you only started it and bailed so I didn't respond, now I see your sticking around for this one, so...

Look up the bibliography on my site From The Deep Ocean Above.

So, what do you want to know???    Do you know where and and how many times the God(s) "love", benefit, or even like Man and where and how many times the God(s) hurt, punish, try to destroy, and the hatred that is cast upon us?   I'll guess,  maybe (love) 1 : 99 (hate and demand love & praise)   And that love is it just stated as such and or shown, the creation of us and our sentience and cognition of the surrounding don't count.  How about how much evidence is mounted up that the Sky God concept was originated from natural phenomena and evolved through the ages and in some instances plagiarized from others vs. communication from beyond? (natural) 100 : 0 from another dimension   < notice I didn't end with a period as not to be rude

[Nontheist]

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.

---

Oh hang on I cocked up

[Minimalist]

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.

<Yawn>   How about you shut your fucking trap and present your evidence.

Then we'll see how much of a shitburger you are.

[Simon Moon]

The claim "there is no evidence" is not a typical one outside of theist strawmen. The claim, such as it is, that person x has not yet seen credible, compelling evidence, however, is.

Exactly!

I never say, "there is no evidence for the existence of a god". So, right off the bat, the OP is a straw man.

I always phrase it, "there is insufficient demonstrable evidence to support the existence of a god".

Anecdotal, personal revelation, ancient texts, philosophical arguments (Kalam, Ontological, teleological, TAG)  could all be called 'evidence'. Just really, REALLY bad evidence for the type of claim they are meant to support. 

You have to be an Olympian class 'special pleader' to consider those types of evidence sufficient for the existential claim for a god.

[Cyberman]

The courtroom analogy is an excellent one. There's a reason why courts only accept evidence relevant to the case and aren't big on rambling logical sleights of hand. Nor is belittling the jury's intelligence and biases particularly tolerated.

Now compare that to the old witch trials, which allowed "spectral evidence" that clearly couldn't be falsified and played directly into the biases of the time. When your best argument is the equivalent of "she turned me into a newt... I got better", you can be pretty sure that there really isn't anything of substance to examine. What's truly tragic in all this is that our friend might actually have a real argument; but he spends so much time smokescreening with trollish bluster about how stupid we all are, that I wonder if he realises his 'evidence' is even more delicate than he is.

[RoadRunner79]

The claim "there is no evidence" is not a typical one outside of theist strawmen. The claim, such as it is, that person x has not yet seen credible, compelling evidence, however, is.

Apparently you do not frequent or read this board

[Cyberman]

Nope; never been here before.

Perhaps you could do the xtian thing and help a poor newbie with a link or two to where the claim is common. You wouldn't want to give a bad impression and lead me to think you're just trying to pull the wool over my eyes, now would you?

[RoadRunner79]

Nope; never been here before.

Perhaps you could do the xtian thing and help a poor newbie with a link or two to where the claim is common.

Or just wait a few minutes...

[Cyberman]

Waiting...