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

[Minimalist]

How long should I wait for these links? I'm new around here.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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 CALL POO!

You can't prove your religious ideology as valid, therefore it's the naysayers who are "incompetent" - UH-HUH!

I believe I speak for other atheists in saying that we could give a fuck what you believe, so long as you don't attack young and pre-rationalistic minds with your bullshit. There is no level of dishonesty which you won't stoop to toward that end, including the most ridiculously convoluted ideas supporting "design", which is really creationism impersonating science and smashing all its rules. Your god doesn't need to resort to having his followers abusing the law by muscling their non-science into science classrooms if he's really anything at all other than the shit in your heads!

Who is it who really wants the world to believe something which is too outrageous for people outside of evangelical churches to conclude on as true through their own observations, without your badgering? A few minutes inside of any such church is all it takes to answer that question,

TROLL ASSHOLE!

[Whateverist]

Well said. This one deserves your usual. Have at it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Except that there's supposed to be evidence for gods as perceptible as (to use your example) QM.

The evidence that QM is valid is right in front of you; the monitor you're reading this reply on relies on QM to operate.

[ignoramus]

Correct. Therefore pink unicorns must exist because there's just no scrap of evidence to prove otherwise.
Is this guy for real?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, I'd just like to point out that searching for evidence is, ahem, evidence of a lack of faith.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]

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.

And the best response to THAT is - "Go suck your mother's hairy d*ck, you sanctimonious twat-pimple". What's your smug and witless retort to that, troll? Take your time.

Better yet - come back when you have some actual evidence for your claims, rather than just effects of wishful thinking, confirmation bias and plain old willful ignorance.

You can interpret whatever you want as proof of god, just as I can interpret anything I want as proof that your biological father was the family mutt... Except that the odds of my hypothesis being true are way higher.

[Delicate]

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 CALL POO!

You can't prove your religious ideology as valid, therefore it's the naysayers who are "incompetent" - UH-HUH!

I believe I speak for other atheists in saying that we could give a fuck what you believe, so long as you don't attack young and pre-rationalistic minds with your bullshit. There is no level of dishonesty which you won't stoop to toward that end, including the most ridiculously convoluted ideas supporting "design", which is really creationism impersonating science and smashing all its rules. Your god doesn't need to resort to having his followers abusing the law by muscling their non-science into science classrooms if he's really anything at all other than the shit in your heads!

Who is it who really wants the world to believe something which is too outrageous for people outside of evangelical churches to conclude on as true through their own observations, without your badgering? A few minutes inside of any such church is all it takes to answer that question,

TROLL ASSHOLE!

I'm clearly responding to a pre-rationalistic mind right now, as evidenced by your post.

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.

Which makes atheists akin to blind people who, because they can't see, reject the existence of color.

And the credibility thing proves my point. Which claims have atheists seen that they can demonstrate are not credible?

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

I like intelligent, stimulating discussion. Hence I'm hardly ever here.

Could you lay out more clearly how you conclude the 1:99 ratio?

[RoadRunner79]

How long should I wait for these links? I'm new around here.

About three posts after you asked.... someone did say that the exact words "no evidence".  They clarified this a few posts later (perhaps because he read our discussion) and changed it to no credible evidence.  You later changed your tune from insufficient evidence to imply there was not "the slightest atom of credible evidence to be found."

What is the difference between no evidence and no credible evidence?   In the link to the Stanford encyclopedia which someone referenced, it defines evidence as that which justifies belief.   Do you think that non-credible evidence is justification for belief?

I do think that it is understandable that if it is commonly said that there is "no evidence" that one may understand it to mean exactly that.   And it may be somewhat rash to claim a straw man.

However; I stand corrected and now understand that you (and do you speak for all or most atheists in your strawman claim?)  do think there is that which justifies belief in God (even if insufficient for committed belief).

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

Here we go again, sounds like Little Rik all over again. Hope that last doesn't constitute some sort of forum no no.