street epistemology

[drfuzzy]

How about you do some critical thinking and discover the obvious answer on your own.  I am not doing your homework, intellectual slacker.

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.

I wasn't going to respond any more, but this is just absurd.  I work at a blind school.  1) In case you didn't know, the vast majority of people who are blind have some usable vision - - 85% - - and they react to light.  When that light is at the right frequency and spectrum, they can see color.  2) For those few who live in total darkness, we teach them about the spectrum of light pretty much the same way as we do sighted students: we describe frequencies and wavelengths.  Color, for them, is a mathematical equation, which we also demonstrate by correlating the light frequencies to sound waves.  There are also the descriptions of color given by their peers - red is "hot", blue is "watery and cool", green is like grass and leaves, yellow the feel of sunlight on your face.  These add some emotional value, perhaps - it's camaraderie.

[drfuzzy]

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.

^^^^^    ^^^^^

The scientific rules of evidence, beautifully explained.  Verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable, qualitative, quantitative evidence.  As we have responded, probably over a hundred times now, regarding what type of evidence we need for the existence of a deity.  The only type of evidence I will accept.

[Simon Moon]

They present what they believe is evidence.

And you know it's not. Right?

How do you know it's not good evidence?

It is not that tough to determine good from bad evidence.

To start with, evidence that is not demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable, is bad evidence.

For example; anyone, from any culture or religious belief can perform experiments to measure the speed of light, and they will all (if they do the experiment correctly) get the same results.

With god claims, there is nothing even similar that can be used to get repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable results. Muslims get Islam based results, Christians get Christian results, Hindus get Hindu based results, etc. No single religion or god belief withstands the "outsider test" to determine their truthfulness.

Because I'm sure, when it comes to other supernatural claims (alien abductions, bigfoot, ancient aliens, etc), you use this method of determining whether you believe the claim. What keeps you from believing in alien abductions (assuming you don't)? If you are like the vast majority, it is probably because there is insufficient demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence to support the claim.

[Delicate]

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.

Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response

[drfuzzy]

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.

Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response

And now we get snarky sarcasm.  I have told you the same thing in these threads more than a dozen times, on my own, and other members have done the same.

[Simon Moon]

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.

Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response

Or maybe, it is a lack you actually paying attention to the vast majority of atheists here telling you the same thing on almost everyone of your threads.

Or a reading comprehension problem on your part.

[Delicate]

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.

I wasn't going to respond any more, but this is just absurd.  I work at a blind school.  1) In case you didn't know, the vast majority of people who are blind have some usable vision - - 85% - - and they react to light.  When that light is at the right frequency and spectrum, they can see color.  2) For those few who live in total darkness, we teach them about the spectrum of light pretty much the same way as we do sighted students: we describe frequencies and wavelengths.  Color, for them, is a mathematical equation, which we also demonstrate by correlating the light frequencies to sound waves.  There are also the descriptions of color given by their peers - red is "hot", blue is "watery and cool", green is like grass and leaves, yellow the feel of sunlight on your face.  These add some emotional value, perhaps - it's camaraderie.

That's interesting. It must be quite fulfilling to work with them.

But pertinent to our discussion, what seems to be happening is that you teach them, and they believe (at least the ones with total darkness do) without having access to the empirical evidence. 

What if they had a standard of evidence that said "I only believe what I can empirically verify"? In that case they would have no grounds to believe you. For them, the belief in color would have to be taken on faith.

[Delicate]

Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response

Or maybe, it is a lack you actually paying attention to the vast majority of atheists here telling you the same thing on almost everyone of your threads.

Or a reading comprehension problem on your part.

Well, when I asked you the question once, you said nothing of the sort. You just repeated your earlier claim, as if you didn't understand the question.

Go back and verify this if you don't believe me.

It suggests that in fact if anyone has a comprehension problem, you might be the one.

[Delicate]

Thanks. This is a genuinely substantive response

And now we get snarky sarcasm.  I have told you the same thing in these threads more than a dozen times, on my own, and other members have done the same.

Don't be an idiot. That was by far the most substantive response I've seen. Ever, on this forum, to the question I put forward.