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

[paulpablo]

I can see one fault here, atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief.  I'm surprised you overlooked this since you say atheists are always telling you this.

It might be the case that you're constantly being told the same arguments by atheists because you're constantly ignoring the arguments resulting in them being repeatedly explained.

Atheists say things. Deepak Chopra says things. Politicians say things. Lawyers say things. Salesmen say things.

Who is to believe without evidence?

I've presented a fault with your reasoning and you haven't presented any sort of argument back.  Are you going to conclude our conversation with seemingly meaningless words or do you want to stay on track with the topic which is your opinion that atheism is a belief despite that not being the definition of atheism?

You say atheism = a belief.

Actual definition of atheism = lack of belief in gods or god.

Your reply to this is that people say things.

Can you see how this doesn't seem to be a valid reply or deal with any of the points raised so far?

[Angrboda]

I think Elvis has left the building.

[drfuzzy]

I think Elvis has left the building.

I sure hope so.  Happy Yule, Happy Solstice, Happy Holidays woo hoo time for a FESTIVUS party everybody!

[Delicate]

Atheists say things. Deepak Chopra says things. Politicians say things. Lawyers say things. Salesmen say things.

Who is to believe without evidence?

I've presented a fault with your reasoning and you haven't presented any sort of argument back.  Are you going to conclude our conversation with seemingly meaningless words or do you want to stay on track with the topic which is your opinion that atheism is a belief despite that not being the definition of atheism?

You say atheism = a belief.

Actual definition of atheism = lack of belief in gods or god.

Your reply to this is that people say things.

Can you see how this doesn't seem to be a valid reply or deal with any of the points raised so far?

You haven't presented a fault. You've alleged a definition that makes no sense.

I reject it, and I've given reasons for doing so.

If my reasons don't cut mustard, please explain how. But don't keep repeating the baseless assertion any the definition of atheism.

[paulpablo]

I've presented a fault with your reasoning and you haven't presented any sort of argument back.  Are you going to conclude our conversation with seemingly meaningless words or do you want to stay on track with the topic which is your opinion that atheism is a belief despite that not being the definition of atheism?

You say atheism = a belief.

Actual definition of atheism = lack of belief in gods or god.

Your reply to this is that people say things.

Can you see how this doesn't seem to be a valid reply or deal with any of the points raised so far?

You haven't presented a fault. You've alleged a definition that makes no sense.

I reject it, and I've given reasons for doing so.

If my reasons don't cut mustard, please explain how. But don't keep repeating the baseless assertion any the definition of atheism.

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think Elvis has left the building.

I think Elvis should be 86ed if he hasn't, for being a twatfart.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I reject it, and I've given reasons for doing so.

If my reasons don't cut mustard, please explain how. But don't keep repeating the baseless assertion any the definition of atheism.

Your reasons are flawed because they are rooted in preconceived notions and not human thinking, which is, after all, the topic.

I'd give you my dad's advice -- you've got two ears and one mouth for a reason, use them in that order -- but I don't think you have the humility to take it to heart. You're a house-proud town mouse very eager to show off rather than learn -- that much is plain.

I hope the guys at your Christian forum are giving you the likes you so obviously crave.

[downbeatplumb]

I've presented a fault with your reasoning and you haven't presented any sort of argument back.  Are you going to conclude our conversation with seemingly meaningless words or do you want to stay on track with the topic which is your opinion that atheism is a belief despite that not being the definition of atheism?

You say atheism = a belief.

Actual definition of atheism = lack of belief in gods or god.

Your reply to this is that people say things.

Can you see how this doesn't seem to be a valid reply or deal with any of the points raised so far?

You haven't presented a fault. You've alleged a definition that makes no sense.

I reject it, and I've given reasons for doing so.

If my reasons don't cut mustard, please explain how. But don't keep repeating the baseless assertion any the definition of atheism.

At the end of the day disbelief in god is such a small part of my make up that equating it with my disbelief in elves is exactly right. Elves are mythological creatures that people believed to fill holes in their understanding where as god........is the same.  Delicate wants to elevate belief in god to another level, something that is so evident that to disbelieve you have to rail against. This is obviously wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_Fp09NC_0

[Bob Kelso]

What was that saying about pigeons and chess again?

[Angrboda]

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.

Sorry if you have talked about this before, but may I ask what is the evidence you are speaking of? Just curious.

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?