Do you wish there's a god?

[Alan V]

To be fair to you, this was a discussion I had earlier with some of the Pure Lackists, and I'm kind of drawing you in. They hold a pretty extreme position. 

I've been clear that I'm talking about adult atheists who were raised in a society and who are capable of language. Not rocks, lizards, children raised by wolves, or people in a persistent vegetative state. I hold that adult atheists raised in a society and capable of language have all heard and rejected religious claims. They rejected those claims according to some standard of judgment. The standards may be better (e.g. science, not revelation, gives us reliable information) or it may be worse (e.g. the nuns were mean to me). But all such atheists are atheists because they hold to some standards of judgment. That is, they have beliefs (in the sense of things they hold to be true) and they are atheists for reasons. 

The Pure Lackists deny this, say they are atheists for no reason at all, and in some cases claim that their minds are the same as when they were infants.

Yeah, I see that as extreme too.

The usual reason people say they are atheists is that they've seen no convincing evidence for the kind of God typically described by theists. They also often maintain that the standard philosophical arguments are flawed or inconclusive, especially in regards to the kind of God typically described. All are good reasons to lack belief.

[Belacqua]

The usual reason people say they are atheists is that they've seen no convincing evidence for the kind of God typically described by theists.  They also often maintain that the standard philosophical arguments are flawed or inconclusive, especially in regards to the kind of God typically described.  All are good reasons to lack belief.

Agreed. 

And I think that if Christians hold up a hundred sentences and say, "this is my evidence," and we say, "nope, that's NOT good evidence," then it's clear we have made a judgment. 

And while we may invoke the letter of the law and chant "burden of proof burden of proof," nonetheless if we want to have a grown-up good-faith conversation, we still ought to articulate why we deem that "evidence" to be bad.

[The Valkyrie]

We have a Goddess of Troll Banning.

[LadyForCamus]

The usual reason people say they are atheists is that they've seen no convincing evidence for the kind of God typically described by theists.  They also often maintain that the standard philosophical arguments are flawed or inconclusive, especially in regards to the kind of God typically described.  All are good reasons to lack belief.

Agreed. 

And I think that if Christians hold up a hundred sentences and say, "this is my evidence," and we say, "nope, that's NOT good evidence," then it's clear we have made a judgment. 

And while we may invoke the letter of the law and chant "burden of proof burden of proof," nonetheless if we want to have a grown-up good-faith conversation, we still ought to articulate why we deem that "evidence" to be bad.

Ahh...So frustrating. If only there were some sort of standardization or hierarchy that we could use to make determinations about the quality of evidence offered. Think of what we could accomplish with a tool like that!

Oh, wait.

[Belacqua]

Ahh...So frustrating. If only there were some sort of standardization or hierarchy that we could use to make determinations about the quality of evidence offered. Think of what we could accomplish with a tool like that!

Oh, wait.

I didn't say such a thing doesn't exist.

I said that people here use it as a standard to make judgments, and that, therefore, they believe in something.

[LadyForCamus]

Ahh...So frustrating. If only there were some sort of standardization or hierarchy that we could use to make determinations about the quality of evidence offered. Think of what we could accomplish with a tool like that!

Oh, wait.

I didn't say such a thing doesn't exist.

I said that people here use it as a standard to make judgments, and that, therefore, they believe in something.

People here...?

[Belacqua]

I didn't say such a thing doesn't exist.

I said that people here use it as a standard to make judgments, and that, therefore, they believe in something.

People here...?

Adult atheists who were raised in a society and are capable of language and post on this forum.

[LadyForCamus]

People here...?

Adult atheists who were raised in a society and are capable of language and post on this forum.

Lol, thank you. You made it sound like the evidence hierarchy is just an atheist thing.

[Belacqua]

Adult atheists who were raised in a society and are capable of language and post on this forum.

Lol, thank you. You made it sound like the evidence hierarchy is just an atheist thing.

The belief that there is an "evidence hierarchy" that is obvious to sensible people and indisputable by reasonable people is something one often sees among adult atheists who were raised in society and are capable of language. It isn't universal.

[Succubus]

...And while we may invoke the letter of the law and chant "burden of proof burden of proof," nonetheless if we want to have a grown-up good-faith conversation, we still ought to articulate why we deem that "evidence" to be bad.

Well seeing as you appear to be playing devils advocate then what in your opinion is the the theists best shot? They just don't have one. Not since Aquinas has any believer offered an original idea regarding the existence of a God, upper or lower case.
As for 'articulate' take downs of theist claims what exactly is lacking in the direct approach of the new atheists, yes I'm referring to the four horsemen. I see no lack of articulation in the writings of Dennett et,al. Sam Harris; ok, I'll give you that one, grudgingly.
There is no argument made over all these years that hasn't been dissected with almost infinite patience.
Ok, Hitchens never was known for his discretion but I personally took great delight in his direct approach. Bang right in the kisser, bang right in the kisser. No quarter given, straight for the throat but nothing inarticulate.