Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[athrock]

And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

This is incredibly vapid.

Obviously, I stimulated your response; you were challenged to do so.

This is atheistforums.org. You must know this.

Well, sure. I came looking for forums like this (There is another, smaller one with a similar name as I'm sure you're aware.)

So we have an entire site setup around a position taken regarding a very specific question: does god exist. Now you come along to inform us that making the observation that there is no evidence for god is 'POINTLESS'. Not only is it not pointless, it is THE fucking point.

But note that I did not say your position is wrong; I only said that parroting a phrase is pointless (for both sides - did you miss that?). And why? Because (as I said) there IS evidence...just not evidence that most here find convincing. But that does mean that there is NO evidence. Heck, a jury may find SOME arguments made by the prosecutor compelling but insufficient to convict.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think very many people in this forum or elsewhere who call themselves atheists genuinely believe that there is literally no evidence. Some do think that. But for most skeptics, I'd bet that they may occasionally, begrudgingly say, "Okay, I'll grant you believers this or that point, but it isn't enough to tilt the balance in favor of belief that a god exists or that Baha'u'llah is the most recent manifestation of him."

And just as a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot may show me a grainy photo of a tiny blur that he says is legit, I can't COMPLETELY discount it without hard evidence that it is a forgery. So, it goes into the "dubious" pile...but it can't be discarded altogether, either.