street epistemology

[Delicate]

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.  By attacking our stance that we do not see enough evidence to cause us to believe in a deity, you are claiming the existence of said deity.   Therefore, the burden of proof requires that you provide the evidence that you claim to have, which (according to you) we either cannot see or have foolishly dismissed.  The only evidence that most atheists will accept is quantitative, verifiable, empirical scientific data.  If you have that data, then provide it.   If you cannot provide it, and keep posting deflections and strawmen and insults and non sequiturs . . . then we should all stop responding, because you have already proven that you are a lying troll.

I'm beginning to think your degree was in homeopathy because you make such elementary mistakes.

[Quote] By attacking our stance that we do not see enough evidence to cause us to believe in a deity, you are claiming the existence of said deity.[Quote]

I'm conceding that claim.

What I'm attacking is the claim that one's perceived lack of evidence is the result of competence.

If it is the result of competence, that means the atheist has studied the alleged evidence for God's existence and found them lacking.

Do you claim your atheism is competent? Then you believe you have looked at evidence for God and refuted it.

Read that last bit a dozen or so times till you get it.