atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.
Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.
Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."
Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.
Believer--how do you know that?
Atheist: because there aren't any
Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.
Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.
(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.
(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.
(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.
(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.
(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.
(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM
NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.
Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?
I asked him what's ridiculous about it:
I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.
Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?