Hell

[OnlyNatural]

Why don't you just tell us what constitutes evidence for you.

Because we are critically thinking about your assumptions and definitions, and to give my view would be irrelevant.

Is that your strategy, then, to just deflect and turn questions around on the person asking them?

Your view is not irrelevant, I'm genuinely curious and it would help provide a fuller understand of what different people mean by 'evidence.'

I am giving an internal critique of OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary in order to demonstrate that it is self-refuting. I, personally, do not accept OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary - so even if there were no evidence of God as you claim, it would not be hypocritical of me to accept His existence. It would only be hypocritical if accepting God's existence violated some epistemological principle which I hold myself and others to.

How did this get turned around on me? Oh right, that seems to be your strategy. You also seem to ignore good arguments against your position, but that's not surprising, most theists do.

Atheists out there: are these 'assumptions' of mine really so unreasonable?
1) There is no evidence for God or the afterlife.
2) Hypotheses that are not supported by evidence should be modified or discarded.

Matthew, if you really don't think evidence is necessary to hold onto a hypothesis, then you won't call me crazy if I say I strongly believe that Narnia exists and that Aslan is my savior. It's written in a book after all! And I've received a personal revelation from the Great Lion Himself!