'Splain this one Atheists...

[Animavore]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

No. What is Ratskep?

It's like rodent herpes.

[Seth]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it lest this place become the same sort of mindless echo-chamber that RatSkep has become.

Says the corporate shill.

And which corporation would that be, pray tell? I don't shill for anybody for pay, I do it for myself and the betterment of humanity absolutely free of charge, as a mitzvah and service to society.

[Animavore]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it lest this place become the same sort of mindless echo-chamber that RatSkep has become.

Says the corporate shill.

And which corporation would that be, pray tell? I don't shill for anybody for pay, I do it for myself and the betterment of humanity absolutely free of charge, as a mitzvah and service to society.

You're a cheap Ann Coulter knock off. Nothing more.

[Seth]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it lest this place become the same sort of mindless echo-chamber that RatSkep has become.

Says the corporate shill.

And which corporation would that be, pray tell? I don't shill for anybody for pay, I do it for myself and the betterment of humanity absolutely free of charge, as a mitzvah and service to society.

You're a cheap Ann Coulter knock off. Nothing more.

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime. She and I would get along fine except for the fact that she's a chain smoker. Nice lady though, witty, charming, attractive, well-spoken and, most of the time, correct in her claims. I've met her several times. Like me, she doesn't pull punches or play the politically correct game. She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

Good thing I don't think comparison to Ann Coulter is a personal insult, otherwise I'd have to report you and get you a rEvacation.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

[Animavore]

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime.

I would too. But probably for entirely different reasons.

She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

This made me laugh today. Thanks. I needed it.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

Good question. If you're not working for any particular corporation it does raise questions.

[Seth]

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime.

I would too. But probably for entirely different reasons.

She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

This made me laugh today. Thanks. I needed it.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

Good question. If you're not working for any particular corporation it does raise questions.

What questions?

[Animavore]

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime.

I would too. But probably for entirely different reasons.

She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

This made me laugh today. Thanks. I needed it.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

Good question. If you're not working for any particular corporation it does raise questions.

What questions?

*which" questions.

[Seth]

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime.

I would too. But probably for entirely different reasons.

She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

This made me laugh today. Thanks. I needed it.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

Good question. If you're not working for any particular corporation it does raise questions.

What questions?

*which" questions.

"Which" would imply an existing list of questions to be selected from. "What" suggests that there may or may not be questions. I meant what I said.

Once again, what questions? And quit being evasive and obfuscatory.

[Animavore]

Well, I'm easy, but I'm not cheap. Sadly I'm not as good looking as Ann Coulter, but I'd shag her anytime.

I would too. But probably for entirely different reasons.

She speaks the truth and screw all y'all liberal twits who want to deny it.

This made me laugh today. Thanks. I needed it.

And you didn't answer the question. Which corporation?

Good question. If you're not working for any particular corporation it does raise questions.

What questions?

*which" questions.

"Which" would imply an existing list of questions to be selected from. "What" suggests that there may or may not be questions. I meant what I said.

Once again, what questions? And quit being evasive and obfuscatory.

No.

[surreptitious57]

Ann Coulter gets the thumbs up from me for she speaks her mind. Although because she is in the public eye she can be provocative
just for the sake of it. Even so she can be as politically incorrect as she likes for all I care. I will not bat an eyelid. I might disagree
with her entire world view but that is no reason to deny her that same right of free speech which I have myself. For to do so would
constitute hypocrisy of the highest order. And so I hope she carries on exercising her First Amendment rights for as long as possible

[tattuchu]

Ann Coulter has a very long neck.

[Brian Peacock]

My point was that one can rationally and reasonably dismiss a claim that does not support itself, but you appear to feel it necessary to treat God-claims as a special type or kind - to wit, a claim that cannot be easily dismissed. This point has no bearing on what atheism is or isn't, by your lights or by anyone else's. It is about you seeking to apply special conditions to discourse, conditions which appear to--and I feel I must be frank here--to bait people to whom you have taken moral exception.

But I'm not talking about "dismissing" a claim because it lacks support, I'm talking about ATTACKING a claim, or attempting to REFUTE a claim using fallacious logic as the basis for the argument. Dismissing a claim is "I see no evidence supporting this claim so I'm dismissing it.? But the typical Atheist reaction to a theistic claim is to go to the Bible, find something nasty that can be attributed to God and then vilify both the theist, the theist's claim, and the biblical passage by assuming a priori that the biblical claim is true (ie: God really did turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt), and saying "God is a prick for turning Lot's wife into salt just for looking back, and therefore God doesn't exist and even if he does he's still a prick") as if God's existence depends on God actually being as theists describe him. This is a tautology that creates the Atheist's Fallacy.

There's also a tendency to point to some wrongdoing by some theist, usually a thousand or two years ago, and attempt to use such examples to impeach and malign present-day followers. This I call the "Wayback Machine Fallacy" because in order to find something to be critical about when it comes to religion, because the practice of Christianity has changed substantially, Atheists attacking Christianity have to go back to the Inquisition to find a causus belli. Modern-day Christians come in all stripes, but by and large they are peaceful, kindly people who follow their deity's commandments to help others and be humble about it. But this defies the Atheist stereotype of a Christian, which is usually built around the Wayback Machine fallacy by selecting some particularly objectionable or heinous misdeed by someone in the past who was putatively a Christian but didn't act like one.

It's not the god-claims that are being subjected to scrutiny. I make no god claims. It's the failures in emotional control, reason and logic demonstrated by so-called "atheists" who blat out at every turn how they have "no belief" about God (and therefore should by logic have nothing to say about god-claims) when it's blatantly obvious that they do in fact have very deep and strongly defended beliefs about the existence of God. I address the hypocrisy and unreason of people who claim to be "atheists" but who show every sign of being religiously-zealous Atheists on a crusade to crush, in particular, Christianity and expunge it from the face of the earth...to one degree or another.

My point is that one can rationally and reasonably dismiss a claim that does not support itself. Your point is that we can't do this for God-claims.

I say that special pleading is fallacious. You say it's justified because dismissing a God-claim is itself an epistemologically unjustifiable God-claim.

I point out that dismissing a God-claim is justified on its own failure to support itself, and that the atheist response is contingent on there being a God-claim to begin with. You say that whatever one puts forward to justify the dismissal of a God-claim is itself an epistemologically unjustifiable God-claim.

I suggest that dismissing claims for Zeus as an equivalent 'Creator and Master of the Universe' of God is non-contentious, such that declaring that Zeus does not exist is a trivial, non-controversial matter. You say that dismissing Zeus-claims is reasonable but add that whatever one puts forward to justify the dismissal of a God-claim is itself an epistemologically unjustifiable God-claim - even though we were not even speaking about God.

I say that accepting that it is reasonable and rational to dismiss a claim (for the existence of a thing) which does not support itself. You concede that 'dismissal' is reasonable and rational, but not when it comes to God-claims because dismissing a God-claim (that is, dismissing a claim for the existence of a thing, called God) is itself a God-claim that invokes both an ethical and moral burden of proof.

I point out that it is irrational to require proof for the non-existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable and rational support. You say indeed, but also that it is not reasonable or rational to say that God does not exist even while the claims for God's existence are not backed up by reasonable and rational support or evidence.

I think your mantra about dismissing claims for the existence of God invoking a necessary burden of proof is fallacious special pleading. You say that that special pleading is justified in this case because dismissing God-claims carries with it (at the least) an implicit counter claim, and because some people who don't believe God-claims have said things about theism and theists which you don't like.

I say that this is the very definition of special pleading and ask you why it's reasonable and rational to apply special conditions in these circumstances, asking, "What's so special about God that invoking special conditions is applicable?" and you dodge the question thus....

It's not theists demanding special treatment for their claims, it's about examining the rational and logical strength of the claims made by Atheists about theistic claims.

What are those atheist claims exactly(?) What I've previously categorised, somewhat broadly I accept, as the atheists, "I don't believe you" position is a response to a particular kind of claim and/or assertion. It is not a claim itself. It cannot stand as a claims in itself. It is a statement of a position, a position that can only follow a claim for some particular thing or other. Consider this...

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

Many times you have been told, as I have told you myself, that atheists generally make no claims for God one way or the other. However, I will openly and honestly declare that I find the claims and assertions of theism and its chums unsupported and unsupportable, unjustified and unjustifiable, unreasoned and unreasonable, or, more succinctly, unbelievable. Again (because I feel this point must be stressed in light of your ongoing commentary) this position of disbelief with regards to the claims of theism et al can only in exist light of the claims of theism et al. First comes the claim, then follows an assessment, then follows a conclusion. Look at it this way...

I don't know if Zeus exists or not, but claims for Zeus are unsupportable, and as it is wholly reasonable and rational to dismiss objective claim that fail to justify themselves I have no reason to believe that Zeus exists - I disbelieve claims for Zeus.

Now my disbelief in Zeus is not a contentious matter because the Olympian religion is long dead and has little to no cultural relevance or power. Nobody is affronted by my disbelief of claims made on behalf of Zeus, Dionysus, Hestia or Poseiden. Nobody is holding the door open for Hades, Hephaestus, and Hermes. And no special conditions are being applied to my, or anyone's, disbelief in the deities of the Greek pantheon, conditions which in your case, it seems, would be crafted to de-legitimise any and all expressions of disbelief in Olympian-claims.

Your point, such that it is, that atheist need to be educated as to the logical error in disbelieving God-claims, has been stated many times, but the question of what distinguishes God-claims from other claims, for example, from Zeus-claims, or Shiva-claims, or Urcuchillay-claims is only that you require special conditions of dismissal to be applied to God-claims.

It has to be said that restating that you are applying these conditions to demonstrate the logical and/or rational failings of atheists does not address, nor justify, their application. As noted previous, your approach can be legitimately categorised as special pleading and burden shifting - in short, your are relying of fallacies to provide an argument supporting the propositions regarding atheism's supposed logical failings.

I must disagree. Your incredulity with respect to Olympian gods is entirely justifiable, as is the classic atheistic dismissal of theistic god claims. That's not the problem at all. Where it becomes justifiable to, as you incorrectly put it, impose "special conditions" is not upon the god-claims of theists, but on the god-claims of Atheists. I predicate this on the premise that "god-claims" can be either positive or negative, ie: "God exists" or "God does not exist." Any positive god-claim, according to atheistic orthodoxy, requires evidence meeting some hardly-ever stated "scientific" metric for truth of the claim, else the claim is summarily rejected and the claimant vilified and insulted, along with his religion. My argument is that it is also required, by atheism's own demands for "scientific" support of god-claims, that the same burden of proof be placed on an Atheist's negative god-claims.

Whenever an Atheist says "God does not exist" in any form at all, including indirectly by simply attacking the person of the theist making a positive claim, then atheism morally requires, and Atheists are obliged to ethically acknowledge that their claim that God does NOT exist is subject to the same burden of proof that they demand of the theist's claim that God does exist.

That Atheists cannot seem to understand this "sauce, goose, gander" application of fundamental fairness, simple logic, and clear reason is really quite astonishing.

What happens when I make such a challenge is that the Atheist under examination immediately (usually) resorts to ad hom attacks on me and everything theistic as a diversion from the examination of the Atheist's unreason and illogic. It's all but impossible to get an Atheist to acknowledge that their claims are subject to exactly the same rules and burdens of proof that they apply to theistic claims.

That's what I've been trying to get at for two decades now. There is absolutely no "special circumstances" for theistic claims being made, I'm simply applying the exact same circumstances that Atheists apply to theistic claims to their own atheistic claims. Nothing more.

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

Now I don't know if some intentioning and creative entity brought the Universe into being and is responsible for the existence of everything found within it, but I am pretty sure that the mythical deity variously called YHWH, God, or Allah does not exist. This follows from rationally dismissing the claims for YHWH, God, and Allah on the basis of their own failure to support themselves. Now while you accept it is wholly reasonable and rational to dismiss the claims for the existence of YHWH, God, or Allah on the basis of their own failings (Seth: "Your incredulity with respect to Olympian gods is entirely justifiable, as is the classic atheistic dismissal of theistic god claims"), you immediately switch to placing that reciprocal burden of proof on atheists' dismissal of God-claims, which in turn requires the invocation and application of special conditions on this specific matter: Special pleading.

Your position is logical inconsistent, therefore you position can be reasonably and rationally dismissed.

Now what would motivate you to take such a wayward and rationally bankrupt course when you are so earnest and insistent on logical rigour in others?

Perhaps now you are ready to explain why unsupported God-claims invoke a special case so that they cannot be rationally dismissed by normal rational standard?

As I said, it's not about dismissal, it's about refutation or rebuttal made in response to a theistic claim that engages in tautological argumentation based in logical fallacies and unsupported anti-theistic claims by the Atheist involved. They must be held to the same standard they attempt to impose on theists, and that's what i do.

Here you imply that for people to state that God-claims do not support themselves, having previously accepted the reasonableness and rationality of dismissing God-claims, are fallacious and 'unsupported anti-theistic claims' in themselves.

Again, you declare that the standard you wish to hold atheists to is the one which they 'attempt to impose on theists.' But the standard atheists 'impose' on theists and theism are the exact-same standards that any reasonable and rational person applies to objective claims: "Where's your evidence?" No evidence = the claim fails.

Again and again, seeking to oblige atheists to evidence their disbelief would imply that not accepting objective claims for which there are no evidence are themselves objective claims which requires evidence. This level of rhetorical semanticism is also logically incoherent.

Atheists will and do expand upon their reasons for dismissing God-claims, chief among them being the abject failure of theisms of any stripe to support their own claims and assertiaon, but declaring this a counter-claim carrying an equal and equivalent burden of proof or support would, if followed to its logical conclusion, mean that any and all unevidenced objective claims could not be dismissed without the presentation of objective evidence in return. This is an all too familiar apologetic tactic, shifting the burden such that a claim stands, even an unevidenced claim, until or unless objections and/or dismissals meet an objective evidence requirement. This is just irrational - a point I made by framing it in terms of a sceptical challenge...

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

Or, more to the point...

What evidence can be brought to support the dismissal of an unevidenced claims besides the unevidenced nature of the claim itself?

Let's look at it this way: being as you are obviously taking moral exception to those who honestly and openly state their disbelief in theisms etc, what do you think are good, or goodish, reasons why atheists should not dismiss unsupported God-claims? What is particular to God-claims which is not relevant to, say, Zeus-claims, or Odin-cliams, or claims for that-guy-with-a-dog's-head-whatever-he's-called? I know you're agnostic on the question of God's existence, but does that agnosticism extend to the existence of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Herne the Hunter, and dog head guy? Do you think that deity-claims are a class of claim which require special consideration? What about claims for objects or phenomena which also lie unsupported by rational means?

Once again, it's not about dismissal, it's about attack.

Once again, you avoid the question and change the subject.

What is particular to God-claims which is not relevant to, say, Zeus-claims, and what is it that is said about God-claims and to God-claimants which constitutes an attack upon them but is not an attack on, say, Zeus-claimants?

Is saying, "I don't believe you," an attack?
Is saying, "I think your belief is rationally unfounded," an attack?
Is saying, "There is no evidence to support your claim, and I think it is silly to hold otherwise", an attack?
Is saying, "Your declaration that I must accept your unevidenced suppositions has no rational basis in reality and amounts to little more than a plea for exceptionalism and for automatic respect," an attack?
Is saying, "I don't mind what you do in your private life but you have no reasonable grounds for imposing your unsupported assumptions on others and/or making them the foundation of society or public life," an attack?
Is saying, "You are completely out of order to tell me or anyone that a failure to accept your point of view justifies the most dire and pernicious of punishments imaginable," an attack?
Is saying, "I have no respect for your point of view," an attack?

The only evidence of attacking I've seen in this thread is you attacking atheists and atheism. To wit...

If you're going to claim you are a rational "atheist" with "no belief in God" then you (the collective "you") really ought to act like a rational person instead of acting like a bunch of foaming-at-the mouth intolerant asses who give atheism a bad name.

The ad-homs, typifying a nominal group as being all of a certain type or kind, and disparaging that group on that basis, is just bigotry, and your justification for it relies on yet another fallacy - the strawman. I do wish you put aside these petty attempts at flaming your interlocutors - whether qualified by the second person singular or plural pronoun, or not. It's not an argument for anything but the ignore button.

Hm, you're right. How's it feel to be the butt of the attack? Perhaps you might want to reflect on the fact that what you just said to me is what I've been saying to those Atheists who do nothing but malign, attack, disparage and insult their theistic (or, in my case, non-theistic) intellectual opponents.

Thanks, but I don't need you to teach what it's like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. I don't believe your self-declared noble intent either - from over here you just seem, shall we say, overly committed and enthusiastic about trying to pull the emotional strings of others. The justification that X also does that to Y is a pitiful excuse for pretty shoddy behaviour.

What you just experienced is turnabout. I was emulating exactly the sort of vacuous rhetoric and petty insults that the vast majority of people here (some more than others) fling at anyone who shows up here with an earnest desire to have a rational discussion on the subject of theism.

Have I made my point clear to you yet?

Yeah, you think you're entitled to fling about ad-homs and bigotry because somebody said something you didn't agree with, or didn't approve of, or wasn't socially lubricated to your fancy, or, in my case, kept asking you a question you'd rather not address. What this portion of your screed amounts to is simple tone policing and concern trolling.

Just because you (atheists) have a moral certainty that you are absolutely correct in your judgment that God does not exist does not excuse the perfectly awful and inhumane, and completely anti-intellectual way in which anyone, particularly visitors who show up here to argue from the theistic position, are subjected on a routine basis.

Irrelevant poppycock. And besides, bleating on that, "You brought all this on yourselves by not doing/behaving in the 'right' way," is invariably the goto excuse of authoritarians, bullies, and abusers alike.

I persevere here and I choose to defend the unpopular theistic side of the argument precisely because I am a veteran of the RDF wars and I've learned the craft of sparring with atheists and Atheists alike without allowing it to either drive me away, as is the case with most theists who come here, because of the vicious nature of a very large contingent of the membership of this site, not to mention others like RatSkep, or allowing the pathological unreason and illogic I see here every day to frustrate me into abandoning the forum, which would be the sensible thing to do. I choose to do battle with "you" because somebody needs to do it and I have the skill and the fortitude to do so, and I do it for the benefit of those who visit here and who lurk.

This is often referred to as special pleading, and in order to counter a simple dismissal on the grounds of a reliance on this logical fallacy the purveyant must make some effort to justify an exemption from normal rational standards on some further, substantive grounds - that is, grounds aside from an implicit assumption or explicit declaration of exemption by fiat.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?
The question is still valid.

Sauce, goose, gander.

That really doesn't work. It's just some words upchucked to avoid the point I've been making and the question I've been asking you for the last few pages. If you were earnest I reckon you'd make some effort to present a case as to why theism, or Christianity, or religiosity in general, should or must be defended here in this public space? Will you be popping over to the ReasonableFaith forum to defend atheists and other non-evangelicals in a similar fashion? I think not.

It is your eager vilification of atheist and atheism which exposes the intellectual paucity of your self-declared moral crusade to teach us what's right and how best to express it.

I think I'm done here.

[Seth]

My point is that one can rationally and reasonably dismiss a claim that does not support itself. Your point is that we can't do this for God-claims.

Strawman. My point is NOT as you claim, as I've gone to exhaustive lengths to explain to you. Once again, I do not claim that you cannot rationally dismiss an unsupported claim. My statement is that you cannot rationally rebut or refute a god-claim by constructing your argument on the assumption that the god-claim is authoritative.

I say that special pleading is fallacious. You say it's justified because dismissing a God-claim is itself an epistemologically unjustifiable God-claim.

No. You are evading the point. You may dismiss anything you like, with or without supporting evidence or in the face of confirmatory evidence. Dismissing a claim is not the same thing as rebutting or refuting a claim. Rebutting or refuting a claim takes the form "If A, therefore B." In order for the statement to be rational, B must logically follow from A. B cannot follow logically from A if A is itself a fallacy. In this case, the atheist claim is usually formed thusly, "God is claimed to have attributes A, B and C, attributes A, B and C are supernatural, therefore God does not exist."

This falsely concludes several things; First, it bases its conclusion upon the premise that the claim that God has attributes A, B and C is true, which may or may not be true. God may in fact not have attributes A, B or C but rather may have some other attributes that are misinterpreted, mistaken or fabricated by the theistic claimant as attributes A, B and C.

Second, it bases its conclusion on the premise that attributes A, B and C are supernatural, which inherently includes the presumption that something that is claimed (by the atheist) to be supernatural is in fact supernatural in nature and therefore false by definition. It may be however that attributes A, B and C, presuming arguendo that they are being accurately described by the original claimant, are entirely natural but merely too advanced or complex for humans to understand at this time.

Therefore, the standard Atheist argument, "God is claimed to have attributes A, B and C, attributes A, B and C are supernatural, therefore God does not exist" is not a rational or logical statement rebutting the theistic claim that God exists.

I say that accepting that it is reasonable and rational to dismiss a claim (for the existence of a thing) which does not support itself. You concede that 'dismissal' is reasonable and rational, but not when it comes to God-claims because dismissing a God-claim (that is, dismissing a claim for the existence of a thing, called God) is itself a God-claim that invokes both an ethical and moral burden of proof.

Incorrect. This has nothing whatever to do with the strength or weakness of the theistic god-claim, it has to do with Atheist logical and rational failures in attempting to rebut or refute god-claims.

I point out that it is irrational to require proof for the non-existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable and rational support. You say indeed, but also that it is not reasonable or rational to say that God does not exist even while the claims for God's existence are not backed up by reasonable and rational support or evidence.

...that you are aware of or that you are willing to accept as reasonable, rational and valid. See above. Merely because you claim that some attribute posited by a theist has "no reasonable and rational support" does not mean that this is actually the case. It may mean that you are improperly rejecting and dismissing support that does exist because it does not meet your own perhaps fallacious idea of what the phrase means. It may also mean that you are rejecting support that is itself fallacious as a result of misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the theist claimant but which when viewed correctly does in fact provide reasonable and rational support for the root claim that God exists. You may reject the claim as invalid and unsupported, but that does not therefore lead to the valid conclusion that God does not therefore exist, which is not a dismissal, it's an attempt at refutation. An illogical and irrational one.

I think your mantra about dismissing claims for the existence of God invoking a necessary burden of proof is fallacious special pleading. You say that that special pleading is justified in this case because dismissing God-claims carries with it (at the least) an implicit counter claim, and because some people who don't believe God-claims have said things about theism and theists which you don't like.

Strawman again. It's not about dismissal, it's about attempts at refutation.

I say that this is the very definition of special pleading and ask you why it's reasonable and rational to apply special conditions in these circumstances, asking, "What's so special about God that invoking special conditions is applicable?" and you dodge the question thus....

It's not about God at all, it's about your internal logical processes, which are faulty.

Again, you declare that the standard you wish to hold atheists to is the one which they 'attempt to impose on theists.' But the standard atheists 'impose' on theists and theism are the exact-same standards that any reasonable and rational person applies to objective claims: "Where's your evidence?" No evidence = the claim fails.

This falsely presumes that there is no evidence. It may be that there is evidence, but that you simply choose to reject that evidence for reasons of your own having nothing whatever to do with the actual evidence.

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

That depends on whether or not there is no reliable evidence and no rational support for the claim. You have failed to demonstrate that this is the fact.

Or, more to the point...

What evidence can be brought to support the dismissal of an unevidenced claims besides the unevidenced nature of the claim itself?

Again, it's not about dismissal, it's about refutation.

Once again, you avoid the question and change the subject.

No, you do. You're trying to change the subject from "God is claimed to have attributes A, B and C, attributes A, B and C are supernatural, therefore God does not exist" to "I dismiss the claim that God exists."

What is particular to God-claims which is not relevant to, say, Zeus-claims, and what is it that is said about God-claims and to God-claimants which constitutes an attack upon them but is not an attack on, say, Zeus-claimants?

Is saying, "I don't believe you," an attack?

Non sequitur.

Is saying, "I think your belief is rationally unfounded," an attack?

Non sequitur

Is saying, "There is no evidence to support your claim, and I think it is silly to hold otherwise", an attack?

It is an attempt to rebut the claim by claiming that there is no evidence to support the claim, which claim is not itself rationally and logically supported, which therefor makes the statement an irrational one.

Is saying, "Your declaration that I must accept your unevidenced suppositions has no rational basis in reality and amounts to little more than a plea for exceptionalism and for automatic respect," an attack?

It is an attempt to rebut the claim by claiming that there is no evidence to support the claim, which claim is not itself rationally and logically supported, which therefor makes the statement an irrational one.

Is saying, "I don't mind what you do in your private life but you have no reasonable grounds for imposing your unsupported assumptions on others and/or making them the foundation of society or public life," an attack?

Yes, because it presumes that there are "no reasonable grounds" without a foundation or support for that conclusion. There may well be reasonable grounds that you merely choose to reject for irrational and illogical reasons of your own. You cannot validly conclude that there are "no reasonable grounds" merely by asserting that this is the case.

Is saying, "You are completely out of order to tell me or anyone that a failure to accept your point of view justifies the most dire and pernicious of punishments imaginable," an attack?

Yes. The claim of eternal punishment for sin is not itself claimed to be justifiable or unjustifiable, it is simply claimed to be true. If someone tells you "If you step off that cliff you will die" a threat of punishment for disobedience or a statement of gravitational fact? If it is true that God condemns those who are not saved to eternal torment, then informing someone of that fact is no more "out of order" than informing them that gravity will be the proximate cause of their death if they step off of a cliff.

Your statement falsely presumes mal intent on the part of the speaker, as if the speaker is the one who is going to exact the punishment for perceived offenses against God (as Muslims do), whereas in point of fact, with respect to most Christians, it's a good-hearted attempt to warn you of the as-inevitable-as-gravity consequences of sin in hopes of persuading you NOT to sin and to have those sins you have committed which might doom you to that punishment redeemed and forgiven through acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.

Is saying, "I have no respect for your point of view," an attack?

Of course.

The only evidence of attacking I've seen in this thread is you attacking atheists and atheism. To wit...

Well, yeah, of course. That's why I started the thread. Duh.

Thanks, but I don't need you to teach what it's like to be on the receiving end of bigotry.

Don't I? I think I do, based on your rhetoric.

I don't believe your self-declared noble intent either - from over here you just seem, shall we say, overly committed and enthusiastic about trying to pull the emotional strings of others.

You're free to believe what you like. That belief however, does not necessarily represent either truth or a rational belief.

The justification that X also does that to Y is a pitiful excuse for pretty shoddy behaviour.

Think of it as a metaphor.

Just because you (atheists) have a moral certainty that you are absolutely correct in your judgment that God does not exist does not excuse the perfectly awful and inhumane, and completely anti-intellectual way in which anyone, particularly visitors who show up here to argue from the theistic position, are subjected on a routine basis.

Irrelevant poppycock. And besides, bleating on that, "You brought all this on yourselves by not doing/behaving in the 'right' way," is invariably the goto excuse of authoritarians, bullies, and abusers alike.

It's also often true. When you (atheists) pillory and abuse theists you seem to think that you are somehow immune from the same sort of treatment. You're wrong.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?

You may dismiss whatever you like. You may not attempt to rebut or refute any claim using illogic and unreason without the jeopardy of being called on your unreason.

That really doesn't work. It's just some words upchucked to avoid the point I've been making and the question I've been asking you for the last few pages. If you were earnest I reckon you'd make some effort to present a case as to why theism, or Christianity, or religiosity in general, should or must be defended here in this public space?

Why shouldn't it? Because you don't like theism? Or is it because you find your arguments wanting and wish to cut short the debate to salve your wounded ego?

Will you be popping over to the ReasonableFaith forum to defend atheists and other non-evangelicals in a similar fashion? I think not.

That's your job. This is mine.

It is your eager vilification of atheist and atheism which exposes the intellectual paucity of your self-declared moral crusade to teach us what's right and how best to express it.

Sauce, goose, gander. If you (atheists) want to be treated with dignity and respect, then treat others with dignity and respect. Otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to address your (atheist) bad behavior and unreason in kind, particularly in a forum supposedly dedicated to "rationalism" and inhabited by "friendly rabid atheists (mostly)" where the rhetoric is anything but friendly almost all the time when it comes to visitors who happen to be theists.

I think I'm done here.

You were done a long time ago. You've been carved and served already, Mr. Gander.

[Brian Peacock]

The whole post is an exercise in equivocation and evasion.

When an objective claim for the existence of [thing] is dismisses on reasonable and rational grounds (such as the absence of evidence, which you accept and admit), then the claim has simply failed to support itself; [thing] cannot be said to exist - that is implicit in the dismissal, and there's no special distinction or conditions to apply to a claimed-for God[thing] over any other [thing].

You must account otherwise, by some reasonable and rational means, if you wish to support your assertion that there necessarily exists an additional logical, rational, ethical, and/or moral burden of proof which lies with the dismissal. That support has not been forthcoming, and your assertion remains simply that, an assertion.

[Seth]

The whole post is an exercise in equivocation and evasion.

Well, thanks for admitting that about your post anyway...

When an objective claim for the existence of [thing] is dismisses on reasonable and rational grounds (such as the absence of evidence, which you accept and admit), then the claim has simply failed to support itself; [thing] cannot be said to exist - that is implicit in the dismissal, and there's no special distinction or conditions to apply to a claimed-for God[thing] over any other [thing].

This argument relies on the unsupported proposition that "absence of evidence" happens to be the true state of affairs, and that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence. And no, I do not accept that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, nor does any rational person. Again, "dismissal" is an entirely different kettle of fish from refutation or rebuttal. You may dismiss what you like, but that does not mean that your dismissal is a rational decision. It may be the product of your own biases and beliefs, much like radical Islamists "dismiss" the value of free speech and titties. This is not about "dismissal", which is merely a statement of opinion, it's about specific claims that God does not exist made as a refutation of or rebuttal to the theistic claim.

You must account otherwise, by some reasonable and rational means, if you wish to support your assertion that there necessarily exists an additional logical, rational, ethical, and/or moral burden of proof which lies with the dismissal. That support has not been forthcoming, and your assertion remains simply that, an assertion.

I have made no claim or assertion with respect to the existence or non existence of God other than "I don't know." I am analyzing the typical Atheist attempt to support an assertion that God does not exist based on the Atheist's analysis of the evidence, or lack thereof, he or she decides to use to support the ultimate conclusion.