Evidence for atheist claims

[Wryetui]

Excuse me, Ben Davis, but if you cannot comprehend that in this post there is a lot of brainless commentaries and that yours was lost between them we are not going anywhere.

Excuse me, Wryetui, how dare you?! Where do you get off being rude to me when you can't be bothered to read all of the posts in your own thread? If you don't understand basic manners and common courtesy, we are not going to get anywhere. I've been nothing but courteous and patient with you. You owe me an apology.

I do not have time to read trough the whole page you provided,

If you can't be bothered to read it, why do you ask for the evidence?

I have opened it and it is full of technicism I do not understand...

You mean it's full of the scientific notation, technical language and facts that are required to answer your question. Your inability to understand the subject matter alongside your unwillingness to put the effort in doesn't bode well for the fruitfullness of this discusion.

...that is why I just asked you to simplify them and to give me a brief and simplified answer, is it that hard?

Yes it is because of the question you asked. You wanted evidence and because of that, there is no easy answer or one-page summary that can answer your question.

If you think you deserve an apology from me I will give you one, because you always talked decently to me and in a educated manner and you truly deserve it. This is the kind of behavior I would desire for someone that is talking to me, with mutual respect.

I will then re-read it and see what ideas can I ask. People in this forum mock me because I don't understand words that not even they understand, I am curious how much would some of them understand if I gave them to read a treatise written by the Capadoccian Fathers... You are mocking me for my ignorance instead of teaching me.

---

Burden of proof...argument from ignorance...can we take the forum off easy mode for a while, guys?


Who am I kidding? It's always in easy mode.


Rik, get back in your cage.


Tui, a lack of belief in something does not require evidence. In the absence of evidence, it is the most reasonable stance. If you had some evidence, then a lack of belief in the face of that evidence might be unreasonable, but you DON'T have any evidence. All you have is claims.


I'm a little different than most atheists, though. I positively believe that no gods exist, and my proof is in the word "god" itself. "God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.), or  (in the case of Deism) it refers to a linguistic device deliberately contrived to have no definition and follow no rules; this is too abstract to be meaningful, which means that it doesn't represent anything, let alone something that actually exists.


If we ever decide to use it for something that does exist, it will redefine the term. Until then, the word "god" necessarily refers to either a fictional character or a nebulous thing that can't be described, defined, proved, or disproved. Without stating  its qualities or anything about it, how would somebody propose to tell me that a thing exists, or even that it could? If you yourself can't define it and don't know what qualities it has, how would you determine whether it could possibly exist?

""God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.)", any examples that can back up these empty claims?