(December 22, 2015 at 4:52 pm)athrock Wrote: The [atheistic] assumption being that none of the arguments ARE quality arguments…. "You theists must be wrong because you've used a lot of fancy words that I can't be bothered with."
Really? This passes for atheist argumentation?
In short, yes. Generally, they uncritically accept the idea that every demonstration and proof of God has been debunked or refuted. Generally, but not always. I used to be an atheist, just not one irrationally committed to a particular worldview.
(December 22, 2015 at 4:52 pm)athrock Wrote: And your demand [Equilax’s] for "simple evidence"...what's that about, E? What is "simple evidence" that would convince you?
He’s lying. Coming from an ideological atheist like him, the demand for evidence is always disingenuous.
(December 22, 2015 at 4:52 pm)athrock Wrote: But we aren't specifically discussing Christianity, and that doesn't really explain how you justify not believing in ANY supreme being.
Inside a thread about general revelation, many atheists like Cato, blur the distinction so they can start riding their little hobby horses about ‘bible contradictions’ to distract people from the reasonableness of the general proofs.
