Hmmm …
“Wrong on both counts” is a question.
“Atheists have only asked questions” is a question.
“you have been extremely reticent to give answers” is a question.
“This is an absolute fact” is a question.
I get it now. Anything that an atheist says is a question and not a claim.
Okay.
Not that you can’t necessarily do that to Diogenes’s posts, but all those are from a post from afterwards and not counted in his claim.
This is evasive, sophist nonsense. I was commenting specifically on the discussion as it pertained to atheist challenges of theist assertions. You keep falsely asserting that these questions amount to assertions in themeselves and claiming (erroneously) that atheists have a burden to prove the null. You may think you’re putting atheists on the defensive but all you’re really doing is obfuscating and showing rhetorical immaturity.
*Do * I reject the theory of evolution by natural selection? Where did I say that? All I did say would that it would be asinine to argue that you failed to understand properly why you reject all other accounts of the origin of species.
You see, this is the part that rather crosses the border to outright insult - arguing that I do not understand why I reject all other gods, and that if I did, I would naturally understand why you reject mine; and then you compound the offence by saying “Probably not”, which I suspect is not a criticism of the poor strength of the argument but an attempt to imply that I am deficient in reasoning skill.
Specifically, which “theist assertions” did **Chief Pedant ** present? (It was his post that started all of this.)
I’ll post it again, in its entirety:
Again, which “theist assertions” did **Chief Pedant ** present?
Huh? Where did I claim that atheists have a burden to prove the null?
How about just sticking to what I wrote, rather than to what you think (erroneously) that I wrote?
Well, it seems to me that you are defending your position, so, I guess, you *are * on the defensive. And thanks for the compliment. 
Anyway, I’m tired of this. (As, I’m sure, you are.)
With your practically perfect command of logic, perhaps you shouldn’t be wasting your time arguing with “lil ole me”. Perhaps you should be meeting with high-level clergy and theologians and pointing out the error of *their * ways. I doubt that they could beat you in an argument.
The whole thing was proposed as an exercise in showing theists why the god hypothesis fails to persuade. The whole thing is a response to the god hypothesis, none of it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God.
Demanding that atheists prove there is no difference between a beliefin god and in Santa is a demand to prove the null.
That’s what I am doing.
No, I’m pointing out your own fallacies, not defending anything.
What reason would I have for wanting to explain to “high level clergy and theologians” why I have never been persuaded to believe in their gods? Why would they care? Why should I care that they ARE persuaded?
As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God and anyone trained in theology or the clergy already knows all the rebuttals. Educated theists understand that their beliefs cannot be empirically proven, so they don’t bother to try. Educated atheists understand that gods cannot be empirically disproven so they don’t bother to try. There’s nothing to argue about. The null still holds empirically. Both sides understand that. There’s also no reason for an atheist to care if someone else believes in God. Why do you assume that atheists would necessarily be out to deconvert people? Evangelism is for the religious.
Who are you arguing with here? Did I claim that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God”?
Really?
Are you saying that anyone can make a comparison between any two things without needing to justify that the two things are similar enough to warrant the comparison?
Some more of your “questions”?
Okay, seriously, in your quote above, you say: “As a matter of fact”; “**all ** the classical proofs”; “**anyone ** trained in theology”; “knows **all ** the rebuttals”.
How do you get off making such sweeping assertions without providing any evidence, let alone proof? ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN CITE (hey, these capitals are nice!) the “burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” Something. Not just an assertion about a god-belief. Something. Is that clear?
Please back up your assertions or shut up.
And I mean that in the nicest possible way. 
Somehow Jesticulator seems very appropriate for you, what with all the hand-waving you’re doing.
Pretty much.
Yep. How is the atheist supposed to know how you make ontological distinctions between magical creatures? Demanding that the atheist define your hypotheis is logical nonsense.
I’m saying that anyone can ask what the difference is between two things.
No, these are statements of fact.
This is true, Take a theology or a philosophy class. Or a science class.
[sigh]
All you’re really doing is flaunting your own ignorance of some extremely well worn debates. There are three classical proofs for the existence of God. Anyone who takes a first year philosphy or theology class learns what they are and learns the rebuttals. The three classical arguments are as follows
The Cosmological Argument (aka “First Cause”)
The Teleological Argument (argument from perceived design)
The Ontological Argument
There are also some other arguments like the Moral Argument but the three I listed are the main ones. It would be exceedingly impractical for me to go through every conceivable argument for God and explain to you why they don’t work. would you be satisfied if I gave an abbreviated version of how the ones I listed can be dismantled? How many arguments do I have to rebut before you will be satisfied that I’ve supported my contention? I assure you that all of them fail to convince (and please don’t mistake that for an assertion that rebutting the persuasiveness of the arguments is an ipso facto argument against the existence of God. The rebuttals just show that the proofs fail to prove anything) but if you’re aware of an argument which you think is especially effective, let me know what it is and I’ll be happy to show you why it fails miserably.
Where should I start?
They’re two completely different things. And in fact, that would be a great argument. If someone didn’t understand why he should reject (for example) the old French theory I mentioned above, I would not place much trust in their understanding of current evolutionary theory.
It’s intellectually dishonest because you and I both know that they’re two completely different things. Like I said, belief in any particular deity or pantheon is not based on the fact that that particular deity or pantheon can be proven any more convincingly than any other. Sure, belief in God or, say, Apollo, is more rational than joining a cargo cult–but the two are not more rational than each other. IOW, if you would argue that it is rational not to dismiss the existence of God offhand–which you are doing now, if I’m not mistaken–then you must accept that it is rational not to dismiss the existence of the Greek pantheon offhand, as well. In which case your acceptance of one and not the other is the product of faith and/or cultural factors, not the inherent superiority of one belief system over another. I reject your God for the same reasons that I reject the Greek pantheon; OTOH, the reasons you reject the theory of evolution by natural selection are not and can not be the same as the reasons you reject the French theory mentioned upthread.
We don’t have prophets. We are atheists. Is this as difficult as you’re making it out to be? Charles Darwin was a genius and a giant in his field. So were Isaac Newton, Thelonius Monk, and Mark Twain. Darwin did not revolutionize scientific understanding by receiving divine knowledge that he alone was privy to; he was in the right place at the right time and with the right natural and learned abilities to advance the work of other humans, like Gregor Mendel.* No atheist believes otherwise. Trying to jam us into your system of comprehending the world is not only insulting, but it belies an ignorance of basic theological concepts as well.
*I might have the wrong Gregor one here. Forgive me. It’s been a little while since I last took Biology.
Well, they apparently don’t. Evolution is a fact. It is directly observable. Natural selection is “only” a theory, but then again, so is relativity, and there’s not too much opposition to that, is there? Denying evolution is like denying gravity: you can, but if you do, you’ll be the one with pie on your face.
Well, it’s probably true of many/most Christians. I think that if you went around asking Christians why they don’t believe in Thor, you’ll walk a long way and waste a lot of breath before you get an answer that wouldn’t work just as well the other way around.
I was under the impression that the answer you’d always get is “Because my god says Thor doesn’t exist”, which isn’t a particularly reversible argument. This is why the “you are almost as much an atheist as I am, just one god less” line never sounded any good to me; most theists do not reject the other gods for the same reason that the atheist rejects them, so it’s not correct to say that the atheist need only examine their own beliefs about those other gods. They’d have to understand the atheist’s beliefs about such gods, which is not something you’d expect them to intuitively able to do (which would deprive the atheist of an opportunity to mock the density of the theist for not having done it already).
That’s why I prefer the “Why to competing theists believe/If they can be deluded, why can’t you be?” approach. I’m fairly sure it lacks the error of assuming shared perspective that the “almost an atheist” argument falls prey to.
Thor might well have said that God didn’t exist, if God had been around in his time. The real meaning underlying that answer–“the two belief systems are mutually exclusive”–is perfectly reversible.
For Christians one god is way short. There is the father, son and holy ghost. 3 right there. You have the devil who apparently is as strong as gos and lives forever. He has his minions with invisible godlike abilities. God has a ton of angels flitting about invisibly and causing things to happen on earth. We have guardian angels for every person on earth. Christians believe in many gods. They try to define them away but invisible creatures of supernatural abilities are certainly not creatures of the earth.
There is something of a middle between a god and us mere mortals, you know. Supernatural beings aren’t automatically gods just because they have some power.
I don’t really have time to check it out before class, but I am certain that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would have exhaustive discussions of these three arguments, written by professional philosophers and vetted by a team of editors. Perhaps **Jesticulator ** can educate himself there before asking people around here to give him a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101.
Except that that’s not the “real meaning underlying that answer”, from their perspective as the one answering. To them, the real meaning is “There’s one god and he’s mine, and he told me that the Thor-worshippers are wrong”. They can’t reverse that because to them, there is no Thor to have told his worshippers anything.
You have to be at least aware of the believer’s perspective in this, as this argument is clearly designed to be addressed directly to the believer. If they were going to be inclined to consider their religion and Thor-worship as comparable belief systems, you wouldn’t be having the discussion with them.
Having been a practicing Orthodox Jew, I’m quite aware of the believer’s perspective. It’s not relevant whether or not they’re inclined to consider their religion and the worship of the Greek pantheon as comparable belief systems; they are. This is reality. If the Abrahamic believer chooses not to acknowledge that, that’s her prerogative, but it is still true that I reject her God for the same reason that I reject the Norse pantheon. It is also still true that the deeper meaning of her answer, whether she wants to believe it or not, is “the two belief systems are incompatible”, which, again, a believer in the Norse pantheon would just as surely say about belief in the Abrahamic God.
If walking up to religious-types and telling them “It’s not relevent whether or not you’re inclined to consider [concept that’s offensive to them, like God being imaginary]; it’s true. This is reality,” has been working for you, then fine, go for it! It sounds like a very efficient way to ‘convert’ them:
You: Your beliefs are wrong.
Theist: Okay, I’ll abandon them now. Thanks!
More power to you!
For myself, I’m not nearly that persuasive, so I find myself forced to avoid arguments that rely on the theist already having adopted an at least agnostic perspective.
Who’s trying to convert them? The OP certainly appears to be, but I’m not. If I were to say that, I would say it with the purpose of making it clear why I reject their God, and/or why they should respect atheists’ decisions about their own personal lives. If they’re offended, tough shit. I’m offended by things people say about my religious choices too, but I don’t cry about it.
Conceded that your use of arguments might differ from the OP, but even so, isn’t it still inaccurate to say that if the theist understands his reasons for rejecting Thor, that he’ll under stand your reasons for rejecting his god? I mean, I hope that you don’t reject Gods merely on some authority’s say-so.
(Though this might explain why some theists seem to think that atheists only disbelieve in god because the arbitrary authority of “science” says to; some of us have been essentially telling them that’s why we do it.)