(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.
Utter shite.
Christians themselves state that you don't need evidence, only faith.
Atheists, and many within the religious community as well, aren't happy to accept that rather irrational claim.
But, of course, when religious folk say they can provide evidence, it invariably comes down to quotes from their holy books, claims from personal incredulity (I can't see how evolution works, therefore, god!), personal experiences (which are only evidence to those who had the "experience" and those willing to believe them), and idiotic statements like "look at the trees".
You say there's evidence? As long as it doesn't fall into the above criteria, SHOW IT!
By the way, moving a pawn as the first step of the game doesn't count as check mate.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
