(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.
I haven't read all 27 pages of this thread, but being new here, I cannot help but recall the proposition of the race of talking donkeys on a World 150 light years away who speak fluent English and spend their days analyzing the collected works of Shakespeare, which, someone, from this World, transmitted to them several hundred years ago, just prior to the known invention of radio. After all, "Why not just believe?"
