That’s not the point; you cited the number of believers as evidence. It doesn’t make them wrong, but also doesn’t make them right. The number of people who believe in a proposition has no relevance to its validity.
No, you’re insulting people. You called people who hold certain religious beliefs “moutbreathers” in the sentence immediately after you said you’re not insulting people. Are we in a Monty Python sketch? 
Also, you acknowledge that people do hold more nuanced beliefs of God then the one you just slammed, but you’re still not ackowledging that using that belief (the simplistic one) in your stereotype is insulting to those who hold the nuanced one.
It’s not what you’re denying but how you’re denying it.
You insult people who believe differently then you.
I did not cite them as evidence. I said that they would disagree with your assertion that there is no evidence. But yes, the number of people who believe something has no relevance on its validity. That we agree on. 
So you’re saying that there are no stupid people who hold simplistic beliefs?
I’m saying, A) that the mouthbreathers outnumber the nunaced believers and B) that nuance of belief has no relevance to its validity. C’mon, far more churchgoers have read Jenkins and LaHaye than Tillich or Niebuhr.
Bull. Theists just can’t handle having their beliefs challenged.
I insult their beliefs. That you can’t tell the difference is your problem, not mine.
To throw out an addendum, one can also have a spiritual experience, theophany perhaps, and still arrive at a conclusion by reason of being skeptical of the existence of a deity. (Not a diety, thanks.)
Then again, having a spiritual experience somewhat out of the realm of the religion I had been raised with did add to my skepticism somewhat, although perhaps it should have had the opposite effect.
That in itself means you don’t understand it. Your misperception there is any “design” in the universe is not supportable by empirical observation.
A “building” is not analogous to the universe. A building shows evidence of artifice and design. The universe does not. Not even a little bit.
I never said I wanted to. I couldn’t care less what you believe. I’m just pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument.
I have no opinion on what seems more likely to you, I’m just saying that if you base your conclusion solely on a perception of “design” in the universe then your conconclusion is flaws because your assumptions are flawed. There is nothing in the universe that show the slightest hint of being anything other the result of natural processes. If you want to argue otherwise, please specify a single thing that you think couldn’t have happened by chance. Name one thing that requires a designer.
Oh…and the “most likely” thing is always that which conforms to physical laws. The impossible can never be “more likely” that the possible. Even a moment of thought should make that obvious to you.
No, I’m saying there are people who aren’t stupid and who hold simplistic beliefs. It’s wrong to characterize a person as stupid (or a “mouthbreather”) based on a single belief, especially when that belief can neither be proven or disproven, and double-plus especially when you don’t understand why they’ve arrived at that belief.
This is another gross generalization that’s untrue. We have theists admitting that their beliefs may be wrong in this very thread–that isn’t something that people incapable of being challenged do.
When you use the word “mouthbreather,” which is a perjorative, you’re clearly describing people, not religious beliefs, because religious beliefs don’t have mouths.
Whether there is evidence of “gods” is not a matter of opinion but of fact, There is, in fact, no evidence of gods whatsoever.
That’s wrong.
You seem to have your mind rather closed to this subject, so I don’t think I should bother trying to explain myself to you. :rolleyes:
Isn’t it just your opinion that that’s wrong? In fact, I don’t think it is. I don’t know what could be considered reasonable evidence of god’s existence by any standard.
Yes. I should have said “I think it’s wrong”, but I didn’t. I think there is lots of evidence for God’s existence, and there is also evidence that suggests God doesn’t exist. It’s all in how you interpret it.
Now, as far as proof, that’s a different thing altogether. I can’t prove God exists, nor can I prove He doesn’t.
Yes, I said evidence that stands up to scrutiny. What is there?
On the contrary. My mind is wide open. You don’t have to explain yourself to me, I don’t care. All I’m interested in is physical evidence. What have you got? What is the evidence that gods exist. Don’t just say I’m wrong, prove me wrong. Show me something.
[Hint] Opinions don’t count as evidence.
Evidence is nothing you can “think” exists. It either exists objectively or it doesn’t. There is zero evidence that gods exist. Your opinions don’t count as evidence.
Oh, please. Most interpretations of situations involve a person’s opinion of something. How can you say that opinions don’t count as evidence? You seem to be suggesting that, only if no one disagrees with it, does it count as evidence. If that’s the case, I would like to hear your evidence against God’s existence.
You seem to be confusing ‘evidence’ with ‘proof’.
No he’s not. He’s saying you to offer something concrete, that isn’t just evidence in your opinion.
Burden of proof extraordinary claims blah blah blah. 
Opinions are not evidence by any definition. Sorry. Look up the fucking word.
As for evidence that God does not exist, you first have to construct an empirical definition of “God.” As far as I’m concerned it’s a nonsense word. Asking for evidence that God doesn’t exist is like asking for evidence that gleeks don’t exist. It’s a meaningless question.
‘Evidence’ is open to interpretation. The police examine the evidence, and make conclusions based on it. When they believe the evidence points to something (with a reasonable degree of certainty), then they claim to have ‘proof’.
So your claim to have evidence doesn’t mean anything. Have you got some proof or some evidence that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, like I asked?