What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Ryft]

I don't think you completely understood what I wrote, then.

I understood it very well, actually. What your claim meant and what you meant were two very different things, Tav. That was the point I was trying to bring to your attention. You can't state the truth claim that "there is no objective evidence for God" without shouldering an enormous burden of proof, which cannot be supported validly at any rate. (There's lots of ways to do it invalidly, like the route you took.) As I said, the only thing you can point to is the fact that you've never seen any such evidence; but being unaware of that evidence doesn't make it non-existent—unless you're a solipsist, which you're not. Your truth claim pointed to reality ("there is no"), when it should have pointed to your self ("I've never seen any").

Do you want such evidence? Apparently. Have you been provided any? It seems not. Does that mean such evidence doesn't exist? Non-sequitur.

Having God as a claim within the realm of science (especially in the Carl Sagan example) is a scientific question.

Certainly. But where has anyone posited God as a scientific claim? Yeah, "Nowhere." So your eloquent sermon on the matter was a very odd red herring.

The article looks to have been written out of a response to atheists you've talked to that don't have answers for their standard of evidence.

Then you misunderstood my article, despite its very clear statements. It was inspired by the fact that no atheists I've ever talked to, or read from, can "define univocal criteria for either what an extraordinary claim is or what extraordinary evidence looks like." A rather different issue, yes? Since such a project, although compatible with, is not by any stretch the sum of their standard of evidence, I had no interest in their standard of evidence. It was about the fact that no atheist has ever defined univocal criteria for what an "extraordinary claim" is or what "extraordinary evidence" looks like. I was pretty clear.

[Your argument in that article leaves out] the overwhelming social and political control that religious groups have, especially in the U.S. [...] Now, if you change the situation a bit, and the majority of the country believes in [God] ...

First, my point has nothing to do with American political landscapes or demographics. Another red herring that distracts from my point, which was that "neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with [an atheist's] ability to believe it." It seems that ought to be a fairly self-evident point, and incontestable to anyone but solipsists. Second, the majority of the people in the U.S. believe in God, and that country operates by the will of the people. If you dislike the convictions that the majority votes by, then change their convictions. But try persuading them with valid reasoning, if you want to be effective, since brute pontification from your personal beliefs is doomed to be insufficient; showing them that their views conflict with yours simply cannot persuade. (Reverse the roles and you'll see what I mean.)

It may be frustrating that most atheists will fall back to a "show me evidence" tactic, especially when you don't care either way what they believe or don't.

Their "show me evidence" tactic is not frustrating. Their brutal irrationality is. I wish I could be surprised that you missed the point. Again.

The world could definitely benefit if Christianity as a whole was as tolerant as you portray yourself to be.

I appreciate the compliment. However, "Christianity as a whole" actually is as tolerant as I portray myself. I think you're confusing the noise of the part with the character of the whole; e.g., right-wing fundy conservatives in the U.S. are but a fraction of the billions of Christians. In fact, many of those right-wing fundy conservatives are likewise as tolerant as me (e.g., Greg Koukl); the highly vocal ones who won't reason calmly are simply given more attention, not only by the media by also by atheists. Their pulpit depends on you contributing to the attention they receive. So don't.

It was a general statement made for those who contend that God exists in reality objectively. The criteria is the scientific method, which is based in logic.

First, the scientific method is the criteria only for empirical claims. Second, 'objective' does not mean 'empirical'. Don't be surprised when others reject such an obvious ad hoc redefinition. Third (and back to the point I was making), it was "a general statement made" by whom? If not me, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his beliefs down my throat, as though my world view must play by the rules of his? That question, oddly enough, went unanswered.

If a statement has no evidence to support it, a logical conclusion cannot be made.

It is deeply tragic that you would make such a statement, because it means you're not already aware of how false it is.

To say you know something to be true, but can't back it up with adequate evidence for the claim, it would be intellectually dishonest to say it is absolutely and necessarily true.

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to pull an equivocating switch (your sentence begins on an epistemic point, "I know X is true," but ends on an ontological point, "X is true"), so I shall re-write your sentence and you can tell me if it's what you meant: "It is intellectually dishonest to say you know something is absolutely true if you can't back it up with adequate evidence." And if that's what you meant, why is it intellectually dishonest?

The Pirahas, for example.

I'm aware of the Piraha (you're not the first to invoke them). I am not aware of "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" the claim that they "have no knowledge of a God concept." That's what I asked for. Handing me a noun does not meet the standard of evidence you profess.

Being free of bias: it's not impossible with an atheistic position, but is impossible in a Christian one.

An atheistic position is biased by definition, its every reasoning and criteria starting from a biased "no gods" presupposition. You feel that's the best and default position. Fine. That simply means you have this particular bias. And my position starts from the opposite bias.

There is a range of views on this topic, and although many researchers and psychoanalysts disagree, none of the well-respected and accepted methods include a God in the infant or newborn stage.

You claimed, "Atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of God." I asked for your claim to meet your own standards of evidence. You provided two papers, one from Harder that summarizes Erickson's views, and one from an anonymous source that summarizes Piaget's and Kohlberg's views, neither of which meets your standard of evidence (insofar as they presented no objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method to back up your claim). Knowing that it's invalid to reason FROM your conclusion TO your conclusion (question-begging), where is the objective scientific evidence that we're not born with inherent knowledge of God?

The scientific method [is my standard of evidence].

How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?