(December 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: 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.
Obviously this thread involves some sort of personal argument since I can see that the first posts involve statements like "You fucking dolt bullshit raaaaaaggghghghg
...."Anyway my personal response to this is that I don't say that because I can't see proof of god this god doesn't exist.
All I say is that I see no evidence of god therefore I reject any belief in god. I think god and religions are manmade constructs.
There might be something out there we have no proof of, it might even be a god, but I just see no proof of it.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
