(December 23, 2015 at 1:09 am)drfuzzy Wrote:(December 22, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Delicate Wrote: https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908
Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.
Which are you?
EVIDENCE. You yammer on and on and on about "evidence", you ignore responses and keep yammering about "evidence", and even when we ask for "evidence" you keep yammering on and give us nothing. Zip. Nada. Pages upon pages upon pages of people asking for your "evidence". You give us absolutely nothing. Worse than nothing - you ignore everything you've been told, and type crap like the nonsense above. All you do is stick your nose in the air, try to think up a new way to tell us how superior you are, and have fun typing more insults.
We tell you and tell you and tell you: Definition of atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. We tell you that we have not seen sufficient substantive empirical evidence to support belief in any deities. Evidence, not something from a book of fairy tales, not stories for people who had "experiences", not philosophical arguments, not "look around you, only an idiot looks at nature and fails to see god" - - - you keep flapping your jaw about evidence, so give us the evidence.
Put up or shut up. How much longer are you going to spread shit all over our carpets and try to claim you're throwing pearls before swine?
This. Evidence comes from the word evident. If god were so readily evident, it wouldn't need to rely on overwhelmingly personal (and thus not evident to others) justifications/excuses accounting for its existence.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"