A problem with the word "atheist"

[Whateverist]

Really?  Because I’ve never seen you counter even one of the hundred or so fallacious arguments trotted out here daily by your fellow theists.  So, you don’t feel you have any responsibility at all to foster a positive argument for your position, but you think we are responsible for counter-arguments?  How does that work exactly?

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.

 

There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device  

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:


Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:  


also

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04






Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

 
Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

I'm pretty sure she had in mind worthwhile evidence, something justified .. not a grainy old youtube video, no offense.