Dear atheists,

[Thumpalumpacus]

That depends on the matter under consideration.

I disagree, but I think what we're disagreeing on is the perspective.  If you have an objective, I'm guessing, you are saying you are more likely to achieve the objective by being logical.  I'm saying it doesn't matter whether you achieve the objective or not, so how you go about doing it doesn't matter.

If nothing at all matters to you, then this conversation is pointless.

But if you're trying to complete a Euclidean proof, or settle a criminal case, or manage a computer network, logic is much more useful than illogic.

Of course it has its limits, and I've never been one to argue that logic is the Swiss Army knife of thought processes, but to argue 'There is no "logical > "not logical' is obviously conditional based on the matter under consideration.  

Logic underpins the very computer you are using to post. Try running that same computer on feelings, and get back to this thread with the results ... if you can.

[Cyberman]

Evidence is whatever supports the claim, is unambiguous, is proportionate to the claim, and can withstand examination.

[KevinM1]

That's actually a good example, Polaris.

And I agree with what Esquilax said.  How does it make sense that with no evidence whatsoever of God's existence, he would expect me to fully buy into a glorified book of fairy tales as reality?  And if I didn't believe this book that has as much realistic information as the How to Train Your Dragon series, then I am going to be tormented in Hell for eternity?

Either way, I believe in none of that.  But even if a god like that existed, I wouldn't want to follow him anyways.

Depends on what you consider evidence. 

Evidence comes from the word evident.  Meaning, something other people can observe and verify.  Which automatically eliminates the fuzzy good feelings most theists rely on as proof of their deity, because we can't feel exactly what they feel the moment they feel it. And, not coincidentally, it's usually those kinds of feelings that theists reference first when asked "Why do you believe?"

[IAOALGIV]

Depends on what you consider evidence. 

I suppose that is true enough.  However, I know that I am not the only one who believes there to be no evidence of a god's existence.  So it isn't really as if I am the only one missing something.  Evidence to me is anything that can undoubtedly prove the existence of a god.  Is it too much to ask for irrefutable evidence?  I know I am not the only Agnostic Atheist who would gladly reconsider my stance if a god was to actually show up and prove that he/she was real.

And how would they provide evidence?

[Jericho]

I suppose that is true enough.  However, I know that I am not the only one who believes there to be no evidence of a god's existence.  So it isn't really as if I am the only one missing something.  Evidence to me is anything that can undoubtedly prove the existence of a god.  Is it too much to ask for irrefutable evidence?  I know I am not the only Agnostic Atheist who would gladly reconsider my stance if a god was to actually show up and prove that he/she was real.

And how would they provide evidence?

And there it is...the question that has been asked for years. It is logical to believe that there is no way to provide evidence of there being a god, seeing as how the majority of theists maintain that he/she/they is(are) supernatural beings that are beyond the physical world. So therefore, with no reasonable way to obtain evidence, it is only logical to not believe that god(s) exist. That is like me saying that I have an invisible friend named Charles who is omnipotent. I can't see Charles and neither can you, but I will argue to the death that he is there. Do you believe that Charles exists? What if I handed you a book that I say Charles wrote that claims that he is there. Would you believe in him then?

I could go on...

[IAOALGIV]

And how would they provide evidence?

And there it is...the question that has been asked for years.  It is logical to believe that there is no way to provide evidence of there being a god, seeing as how the majority of theists maintain that he/she/they is(are) supernatural beings that are beyond the physical world.  So therefore, with no reasonable way to obtain evidence, it is only logical to not believe that god(s) exist.  That is like me saying that I have an invisible friend named Charles who is omnipotent.  I can't see Charles and neither can you, but I will argue to the death that he is there.  Do you believe that Charles exists?  What if I handed you a book that I say Charles wrote that claims that he is there.  Would you believe in him then?

I could go on...

Wait, what? A supernatural being with no reasonable way to provide evidence of their supernatural ability? 

[Jericho]

And there it is...the question that has been asked for years.  It is logical to believe that there is no way to provide evidence of there being a god, seeing as how the majority of theists maintain that he/she/they is(are) supernatural beings that are beyond the physical world.  So therefore, with no reasonable way to obtain evidence, it is only logical to not believe that god(s) exist.  That is like me saying that I have an invisible friend named Charles who is omnipotent.  I can't see Charles and neither can you, but I will argue to the death that he is there.  Do you believe that Charles exists?  What if I handed you a book that I say Charles wrote that claims that he is there.  Would you believe in him then?

I could go on...

Wait, what? A supernatural being with no reasonable way to provide evidence of their supernatural ability? 

And there is a reasonable way to provide evidence for the god(s) that are currently worshipped by various religions?

[Esquilax]

If that creator wished for their creation to believe in them, and accept a set of commandments governing their lives, as religions claim that it does, then leaving that evidence would be paramount, certainly necessary for belief in it to be rational.

If that creator had no such wishes and didn't leave any evidence due to that, then we are equally not justified in believing in it.

No evidence, no belief. That's the way this has to work.

Aaaand your back to square one. 

So what? I'd rather be at square one, than being at square one while pretending I was at the finish line.

If you have no evidence for god, then what basis does one have for their belief in it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If a god created you en toto, he would know your curiosity, and your skepticism. Refusing to leave evidence would be tantamount to demanding faith. Demanding faith when he knew he created you with a skeptical outlook would be whimsical to say the least and cuntish to call a spade a spade.

This alleged god can change my mind if he cares to do so.  If he doesn't care, why should I?

[The Valkyrie]

You're a fuckwit.

Not worthy of any other response.