A Serious Question For Theists

[Esquilax]

Reading through this thread again esq, I've actually been addressing your question directly. You don't see it, but that's what has happened. You dismissed scientism as 'stupid'. It's a word. It describes accurately the over dependence on empiricism that you profess, and that you say 'most' atheists profess. If you want to engage here, please look up the term.

Oh, is that what you call it? Because, see, when I begin a conversation by asking a question- "what thing, other than evidence, would one use to justify belief in something, such that one could be said to overly rely upon evidence?"- and that's the first question that I asked, and one that I keep asking, and your only response is to keep telling me that what I believe is a minority view, I don't call that "addressing" anything directly. I call it dodging; you haven't answered the first question I asked, because Hobbit, in order for someone to be said to rely on something too much, there needs to be a second thing to rely on that's equally trustworthy. Until you provide that, your initial premise is shaky, and no amount of telling me how unpopular my view is will change that.

As for calling it a distraction... come on, it's a core element of the position you're espousing. If we're using evidence too much, what else would you have us do? You're telling us there's a problem with our position, and then refusing to correct us in such a way that we can evaluate whether you're correct or not.

Because if you are correct, I want to know, and I want to change what I believe to match. I don't understand why you're so unwilling to help me with that.