Member Forum

According to Slick:

Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. Period. It does not mean anything else. Since it is not possible to have evidence for something that does not exist AND because no evidence for God has materialized over the last couple of millennia, it is irrefutably true (thus far) that the evidence is 0% in favor of belief and 100% in favor of disbelief. That's a laughable record, Slick.
You see? I didn't 'attack the Bible': nor did I 'attack Christians' ideas of God'. Atheism is 100% (thus far) backed up by the lack of evidence for God. Given this fact, Slick, it is silly for a Christian to even mention the word, 'evidence', unless he's preaching to the choir.
An assertion with zero evidence is an extraordinary claim. It is, literally, unsupportable by the evidence. Atheists, on the other hand, are merely asking, "Why believe in something that's never been known to exist?" We don't want to deny God so much as we don't want to deny the evidence. Our lack of belief in God -- or ghosts or Satan or leprechauns -- is based on the lack of evidence for them. We'd gladly (and quickly) change our minds if God chose to reveal himself.
So, Slick . . . where's the 'holes' in my logic?