There are several problems with this post.
1) We were each offering
anecdotal evidence. That means it is subjective. To suggest that anecdotal evidence can be supported through objective evidence (that which pertains to all), is a misunderstanding of the nature of anecdotal evidence (or just a slip in paying attention as to what was said in the exchange, which we all do from time to time).
libre: I think if most atheists operated from assumption . . . IMO a large part of what makes an atheist an atheist . . . I think any are fine . . .
Apok: Now see...I have the identical view of atheists. In my experience, . . . Most atheists IMO . . . From my view, . . .
#1 is
sufficient to expose the flaw of your counter. However, there's more...
2) It does not follow that in order to prove that religious people use evidence, that I must present to you an argument or evidence for the existence of God. Me offering evidence or an argument for the existence of God only illustrates my understanding and my reasoning, not that of other people.
3) It is not the case that all theists, and thus, all religions, are equitable in their approach to reason and support. However, this is largely irrelevant if we are sticking with the issue of the mere existence of God (as there is no need to further define a God into a particular religion, only show that a being that could be described or referred to as God, exists). Which takes us to #4.
4) It also does not follow (yet another non sequitur) that in order to prove that a
particular group of theists may use more reasoning or have evidence for their particular belief, that all religions do.
In short...there's an awful lot of mistakes there in your post libre. You may want to check
that atheist dogma at the door your post and re-evaluate.
Bookmarks