Posted: Nov 09, 2013 6:43 pm
by John Platko
Nicko wrote:
rainbow wrote:Even so, every argument made with the intent of demonstrating God's non-existence on this site to date has been successfully rebutted.

Such an argument would constitute a position of "strong" or "positive" atheism, which is only a subsection of atheism proper (no matter how many theists would prefer it as the definition of all atheism). It would therefore not be expressed by the majority of atheists here. It would most likely appear in a thread entitled "The Best Arguments for Strong Atheism". As it happened, I presented in that thread an argument (from an essay by another member) that the supernatural is an incoherent concept. It remains unrefuted.

Which you are fully aware of as you are a "contributor" to that thread and acknowledged that the argument had been presented without even attempting a rebuttal, much less succeeding as you have falsely claimed.

Having said that a Belief requires nothing more than Faith.

Actually, that was my main point in my original piece of advice in this thread. If a person's belief is based upon faith, they should not pretend that it is based on reason. But equally, they should not expect that "faith" (belief in the absence of evidence or reason) is going to convince anyone, and should expect to receive some "rude" replies if they try either on a site called "Rational Skepticism".

Why should they expect a "rude" reply instead of a reply which politely points out the flaw in their reasoning?