street epistemology

[Silver]

You've pretty much conceded my point.

Atheists claiming lack of evidence for God might well be like blind people who claim lack of evidence for color.

Sorry, the analogy does not logically work. Try again.

[Simon Moon]

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.

You not any where near as bright as you think you are.

I am an atheist based on the complete lack of a compelling case every theist has been able provide for the existence of their god, up until now.

My atheism is, and has always been, a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as theists fail to provide demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic to support their claim that a god exists, I will continue to be an atheist.

So...

Are you going to continue to talk crap, or are you going to provide your evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's invisible evidence, because of your condition.

[Delicate]

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.

You not any where near as bright as you think you are.

I am an atheist based on the complete lack of a compelling case every theist has been able provide for the existence of their god, up until now.

My atheism is, and has always been, a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as theists fail to provide demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic to support their claim that a god exists, I will continue to be an atheist.

So...

Are you going to continue to talk crap, or are you going to provide your evidence?

Have theists tried to provide you evidence in the past?

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, no.  They seem to be more interested in claiming to have it, than they are in sharing it.

[drfuzzy]

If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

Of course you do. That's why I also object refering to Dawkins and others as our favorites. I have no favorites and I certainly don't need anyone to tell me why I'm an atheist.

As long as religion isn't rubbed into my face, I don't rub atheism in anyone's face. You can expect the same reaction, by the way, as if some missionary is knocking on your door.

Yes abaris . . . exactly.  I definitely don't want to behave like the xtians that prowl my neighborhood, knocking on doors.  I do like Boghossian's ways of pointing out logic errors though.  And he led me to more study on logical fallacies.  So it's all good - amazing the way that works sometimes, isn't it?   Happy Holiday!

[drfuzzy]

[Simon Moon]

You not any where near as bright as you think you are.

I am an atheist based on the complete lack of a compelling case every theist has been able provide for the existence of their god, up until now.

My atheism is, and has always been, a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as theists fail to provide demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic to support their claim that a god exists, I will continue to be an atheist.

So...

Are you going to continue to talk crap, or are you going to provide your evidence?

Have theists tried to provide you evidence in the past?

Of course, they present what they believe is evidence. 

You haven't seen theists on this site presenting "evidence" on various threads?

But it always turns out the be: quotes from various ancient texts, philosophical arguments (ontological, teleological, Kalam, TAG, etc), personal experiences, and other flawed, fallacious and otherwise unconvincing "evidence".

So, we are once again at the point that you claim to have facts that a god exists, yet you have not presented them. You have been asked many times to open a thread and present your evidence. Are you ever going to do it, or continue to complain?

[Delicate]

They present what they believe is evidence.

And you know it's not. Right?

How do you know it's not good evidence?

[Sal]

They present what they believe is evidence.

And you know it's not. Right?

How do you know it's not good evidence?

I'm not Simon Moon, but I'll answer for myself what I find to be valid evidence for god(s).

Verifiable, repeatable & falsifiable evidence that can be verified by outside sources, repeated under controlled conditions and is able to be falsified.

The first 2 requirements - verifiable and repeatable - refers to simple conditions for phenomena or basic logic. The 3rd is the interesting one; falsifiable means that there should be an experiment/observation that would disprove the evidence, and when that is met, would be a condition under which your evidence could be dismissed or verified.

---

EDIT: Also, I've yet to find any theist, (or psychic, diviner, etc. for that matter) to produce any amount of the supernatural and that failed these 3 criteria.