(November 8, 2013 at 12:05 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence? It's the atheist that is usually wanting physical evidence on a silver platter presented to them that proves God. The chance that all these atheists are asking rhetorically is extremely low, as it is obvious that they're implying that such evidence is what they require in order to start believing, hence why they're most likely asking in the first place.
It is true that the atheist is the one who wants evidence. The problem is that rather than admitting the lack of material evidence, the theist will persistently make claims that there is evidence, making the argument linger on that specific subject. Outside of an argument purely about whether there is evidence or not, the theist will try to make the claim that there is. I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.
¨I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.¨
