street epistemology

[Delicate]

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.

We're not talking about the existence of God, dipshit. 

Pay attention. We're talking about how to make sure someone who claims to see no evidence for the existence of God isn't just a blind incompetent.

Is atheism the result of blind incompetence in assessing evidence? If not, what is the putative evidence they claim to have examined and dismissed?

[Sal]

Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.

We're not talking about the existence of God, dipshit. 

Pay attention. We're talking about how to make sure someone who claims to see no evidence for the existence of God isn't just a blind incompetent.

Is atheism the result of blind incompetence in assessing evidence? If not, what is the putative evidence they claim to have examined and dismissed?

That's shifting the Burden of Proof if I ever saw one.

[Delicate]

We're not talking about the existence of God, dipshit. 

Pay attention. We're talking about how to make sure someone who claims to see no evidence for the existence of God isn't just a blind incompetent.

Is atheism the result of blind incompetence in assessing evidence? If not, what is the putative evidence they claim to have examined and dismissed?

That's shifting the Burden of Proof if I ever saw one.

No, you never saw one.

I'm not denying theists have a burden of proof. Now hop along.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're disingenuous. But of course, you know that.

[Simon Moon]

Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.

We're not talking about the existence of God, dipshit. 

Pay attention. We're talking about how to make sure someone who claims to see no evidence for the existence of God isn't just a blind incompetent.

Is atheism the result of blind incompetence in assessing evidence? If not, what is the putative evidence they claim to have examined and dismissed?

Either way.

It is still up to you to provide your evidence, then we'll assess it to determine if it is: demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable and stands up to reasoned argument, and is logically valid and sound. 

I'm not about to guess what evidence you claim to have, then dismiss it as not being convincing without first examining it.

Please, open a thread, present your evidence so it can be assessed.

[Delicate]

We're not talking about the existence of God, dipshit. 

Pay attention. We're talking about how to make sure someone who claims to see no evidence for the existence of God isn't just a blind incompetent.

Is atheism the result of blind incompetence in assessing evidence? If not, what is the putative evidence they claim to have examined and dismissed?

Either way.

It is still up to you to provide your evidence, then we'll assess it to determine if it is: demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable and stands up to reasoned argument, and is logically valid and sound. 

I'm not about to guess what evidence you claim to have, then dismiss it as not being convincing without first examining it.

Please, open a thread, present your evidence so it can be assessed.

If it's up to me to provide evidence, and I haven't, then your atheism isn't based on analyzing and debunking any evidence, is it?

Your atheism can only be based on blind incompetence, as you admit.

[Silver]

If it's up to me to provide evidence, and I haven't, then your atheism isn't based on analyzing and debunking any evidence, is it?

Your atheism can only be based on blind incompetence, as you admit.

If only there was evidence.......

[Sal]

Your atheism can only be based on blind incompetence, as you admit.

Here's the definition for bland atheism: The lack of belief in god(s).

To the uninitiated and sorely brainwashed, which I'm sure you are (do you see how that passive-aggressive bullshit plays out?), then it becomes quite clear that atheism is merely a single statement. It is not an ideology. It is not a belief. It's not even a defining factor; since "god(s)" isn't even defined properly. But of course, I might as well be talking to a wall.

Atheism is at most a default position. If you examine the above definition it should be apparent that having a lack of some undefined entity is entirely empty saying. It's like saying I lack any conviction that X is true, where X is undefined. It's dividing with zero. It's splitting infinities.

Now, about burden of proof; atheists claim nothing, present no argument or entity, the word "atheism" is the intelligible sound people say when there's no position to be had, like being a non-stamp collector or a bald man having a hair color. The only reason we even have the word "atheism" is because there are theists. If there at some point in histories past there was a movement or belief about elves with all the same grandeur of supremacy as theism has influenced through the ages in all its flavors, there would be also people who simply never heard of elves or simply didn't believe in them, in which case they'd be a-elvefists. How difficult is this to grasp?

[Silver]

No doubt, all that abundance of reason will fly completely over Desperate's head.

[drfuzzy]

How are they misrepresenting the mythology?  Please, provide me with a couple of examples, because to be honest I work too hard in real life, which is why I am hardly here any more, to read through pages of tripe just to find what you think I might stumble upon.

For one we're not talking about mythology. Maybe you're working so hard you can't keep up with what we're talking about here.

You're talking about misrepresenting Christianity.  Christianity is a myth.

We say that there is no evidence for the existence of any deities that we find plausible.  If you claim that there IS a deity, and you possess the evidence, it is up to you to present that evidence.   Proof is always required of the one who is making the claim.  We are not claiming that there is a god, you are, and it is the basis for every other assertion you have made.

Provide verifiable scientific evidence to support that claim, or fuck off, troll.