Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[Delicate]

Your analogy fails. In trying to draw an analogy between shooting pains and God belief, you say it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on.

But we have no reason to believe this is true of either belief, even if the beliefs are wrong.

Your argument rests on a failed analogy.

Now do you see why I think atheists don't have good reasons for what they believe?

Whether or not an analogy against religious beliefs is a good one doesn't give me any good reason to believe any religious claim which is unsupported by any evidence, and even less good reason why I should seriously consider anything you have said here.

Delicate:

• Atheists are indoctrinated 
     most of us (in the US at least) were not raised atheists, and there are no atheist indoctrination camps
  
• Atheists are emotionally invested in their beliefs
     no, but I am sickened with sadness to see how stupid and cruel religion has made people everywhere               
  
• Atheists are incompetent
     but they win most of the Nobel Prizes
  
• Atheists make unsupported claims 
     right, whatever you say!
  

You seriously come across like a dolt here.

Nobody here is talking about whether you have a reason to believe a religious claim. To go back to the original question:

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Whether or not an analogy against religious beliefs is a good one doesn't give me any good reason to believe any religious claim which is unsupported by any evidence, and even less good reason why I should seriously consider anything you have said here.

Delicate:

• Atheists are indoctrinated 
     most of us (in the US at least) were not raised atheists, and there are no atheist indoctrination camps
  
• Atheists are emotionally invested in their beliefs
     no, but I am sickened with sadness to see how stupid and cruel religion has made people everywhere               
  
• Atheists are incompetent
     but they win most of the Nobel Prizes
  
• Atheists make unsupported claims 
     right, whatever you say!
  

You seriously come across like a dolt here.

Nobody here is talking about whether you have a reason to believe a religious claim. To go back to the original question:

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

Protip, Punk - that is not a question, it's an insult. If you still don't get that, then you can go fuck yourself with it.

I am now nominating you, Delicate, as the new Best Living Spokesman For Atheism - congratulations!

[Delicate]

You seriously come across like a dolt here.

Nobody here is talking about whether you have a reason to believe a religious claim. To go back to the original question:

Protip, Punk - that is not a question, it's an insult. If you still don't get that, then you can go fuck yourself with it.

I am now nominating you, Delicate, as the new Best Living Spokesman For Atheism - congratulations!

Do you seriously not see the distinction between not seeing x because x doesn't exist and not seeing x because you are blind?

You're so hypersensitive that you take it as an insult? On this forum??

[Silver]

Do you seriously not see the distinction between not seeing x because x doesn't exist and not seeing x because you are blind?

You're so hypersensitive that you take it as an insult? On this forum??

Guess what?

You referring to x as though it means something actually guarantees it means nothing.

Great job, you stupid idiot.

Would you care for a retry?

[downbeatplumb]

The medieval people had reasons to believe in the fairies and elves, why else would they believe. My analogy does fail despite your refusal to accept it. By the way not finding an argument convincing is a good reason to not believe it. If I failed to convince you that I used to be a popstar would you still be wrong to not believe I used to be a popstar? In your head you believe everything everyone ever tells you without any evidence. This is not how you operate or you would also believe in Shiva and all the other pantheon of gods around the world. You don't believe in them so why do you find it so hard to accept that we don't believe in your god OR all the others.

None of this gives us a reason to believe that the motivations behind shooting pains and God belief are as you say they are.

Once again, what is the evidence for this claim?

I am curious as to why you continue to think that belief in god is different from other beliefs. To me tis a minor thing. But I shall answer again and put it in large letters as you seem to be hard of reading THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD, NONE, ZIP, NADA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjqxayxwt4

[Delicate]

You're dodging my question.

[Crossless2.0]

You're dodging my question.

[downbeatplumb]

You're dodging my question.

I have said I am unconvinced by your presented arguments, this is not a dodge but a rather easy to follow answer to your question.
Are you saying that the arguments DO convince me and I just refuse to believe? This would be a bizarre thing for you to claim, you cannot possibly know what I find convincing better than I do!
You confuse me, what exactly are you claiming?

[drfuzzy]

You seriously come across like a dolt here.

Nobody here is talking about whether you have a reason to believe a religious claim. To go back to the original question:

Protip, Punk - that is not a question, it's an insult. If you still don't get that, then you can go fuck yourself with it.

I am now nominating you, Delicate, as the new Best Living Spokesman For Atheism - congratulations!

I second the nomination.  Send anyone who is on the fence regarding their xtian beliefs into a room with Delicate for 10 minutes.   Poof, automatic new atheist, just from being insulted and badgered over and over.

[Delicate]

You're dodging my question.

I have said I am unconvinced by your presented arguments, this is not a dodge but a rather easy to follow answer to your question.
Are you saying that the arguments DO convince me and I just refuse to believe? This would be a bizarre thing for you to claim, you cannot possibly know what I find convincing better than I do!
You confuse me, what exactly are you claiming?

What arguments do you take me to have presented, exactly?