When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Angrboda]

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.

Sorry if you have talked about this before, but may I ask what is the evidence you are speaking of? Just curious.

There's a lot to say about the evidence, and how it's supposed to sit with Christian theism.

But here's a taste: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosop...uments.pdf

If all your 'evidence' consists of obscure philosophical arguments, it's no big surprise that the majority of simple atheists have little experience or competence rebutting said arguments. That you think being an atheist burdens one with a duty to refute obscure philosophical arguments only points to you as the one with the competence problem. Perhaps Plantinga gives us the most direct rebuttal of your claims of the irrationality of atheists on page one of your cited arguments, and I quote: "These arguments are not coercive in the sense that every person is obliged to accept their premises on pain of irrationality." Maybe if you'd bothered to read your own source you wouldn't have made such preposterous claims.

When Theists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for Atheist Irrationality?