To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[TRANSPONDER]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Since, as an atheist, I don't credit a single word of that Faith - claim, what (I really want to know) do you think it is getting you?

What is what getting me? It was posted because it addresses some of the issues raised in the preceding post, this is a thread in the Christianity and apologetics area.

Do you seriously think it's going to move someone who doesn't believe in any god?

That question never crossed my mind, I did not write it, I quoted it.

No more than it would move you to have a Muslim threaten you because you don't reverence the all -powerful Allah who created you from clots of blood (which unlike dust is at least organic).

Are you accusing me of wrongdoing? I'm not really following you.

Or is it that at some time you were converted by having a wodge of theophanic scripture dumped on you and you caved in, so you think it'll work on us? What? I'm genuinely curious.

I quoted something from the Bible in the Christianity and Apologetics area, what is your complaint exactly? perhaps its best that you contact a moderator.

Just sayin' you must know that preachery is not going to work. Why do you do it? Is it just to earn brownie points with God that you are preaching to the unbeliever even though you know it's a waste of effort? I'm truly curious, why?

I have a right in the forum to quote the Old Testament, so I really do not understand your point.

Wrongdoing? Not a bit of it. You have the right to post what you think is relevant (subject to Forum rules). And of course I'd suppose that you think this is somehow responding to the progress of the discussion. I'm just wondering how. Do you have the idea that quoting scripture is actually evidence of anything?

P.s actually I might guess (yes the old mustwach 'Losing Faith (Theramin trees) explains. It's a game. A theist confirmation -game. You get together for mutually affirming Bibletalk and each person has to back up the other. I suspect that they come here and expect us to play that game, too.

Who are you accusing of what? might it be that this area of the forum is not for you? why participate in threads that dwell on subject matter that you disapprove of?

"Accusing" is hardly the apposite word; it is more theorizing that the Bible -game is being used here, without realising that Bible skeptics don't play with those rules.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Since, as an atheist, I don't credit a single word of that Faith - claim, what (I really want to know) do you think it is getting you?

What is what getting me? It was posted because it addresses some of the issues raised in the preceding post, this is a thread in the Christianity and apologetics area.

Do you seriously think it's going to move someone who doesn't believe in any god?

That question never crossed my mind, I did not write it, I quoted it.

No more than it would move you to have a Muslim threaten you because you don't reverence the all -powerful Allah who created you from clots of blood (which unlike dust is at least organic).

Are you accusing me of wrongdoing? I'm not really following you.

Or is it that at some time you were converted by having a wodge of theophanic scripture dumped on you and you caved in, so you think it'll work on us? What? I'm genuinely curious.

I quoted something from the Bible in the Christianity and Apologetics area, what is your complaint exactly? perhaps its best that you contact a moderator.

Just sayin' you must know that preachery is not going to work. Why do you do it? Is it just to earn brownie points with God that you are preaching to the unbeliever even though you know it's a waste of effort? I'm truly curious, why?

I have a right in the forum to quote the Old Testament, so I really do not understand your point.

Wrongdoing? Not a bit of it. You have the right to post what you think is relevant (subject to Forum rules). And of course I'd suppose that you think this is somehow responding to the progress of the discussion. I'm just wondering how. Do you have the idea that quoting scripture is actually evidence of anything?

Well that's a great question, how do we ascertain if any text from antiquity is evidence for anything? I can't answer that very well here within this thread, I posted it to show that some of the existential issues raised about good, bad, choices etc are often embedded in scripture. In this particular case how we can't question God, we are his handiwork, the created can't dictate right and wrong to the creator, this is a philosophically important point.

P.s actually I might guess (yes the old mustwach 'Losing Faith (Theramin trees) explains. It's a game. A theist confirmation -game. You get together for mutually affirming Bibletalk and each person has to back up the other. I suspect that they come here and expect us to play that game, too.

Who are you accusing of what? might it be that this area of the forum is not for you? why participate in threads that dwell on subject matter that you disapprove of?

"Accusing" is hardly the apposite word; it is more theorizing that the Bible -game is being used here, without realising that Bible skeptics don't play with those rules.

What's a "Bible skeptic"? are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or others? and who said anything about a "rule"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #78]

Okay, I found this on the web from an atheist web site. Be sure to click on the red which states, "atheist does not accept this claim". It sure sounds like he is making the argument I referred to.

https://www.atheistrev.com/2008/09/proo ... heism.html

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #78]

I was speaking of atheists who qualify as old school agnostics, we are not the ones who assert that there are no gods.

Listen! I really could not care less. My whole thing is, I am fine with how anyone defines their position as long as it is not attempt to "shift the burden". If that is not your aim the we have no problems.

How about if I tell you I have not seen a single atheist using this change for the purpose, and I am quite active in the English speaking atheist online community.

So then????? You are telling me, you have never heard anyone make the argument, "atheism is a lack of belief, and therefore owns no burden and it is the theist who owns the burden"? You've never heard one make this argument? Is that what you are saying?

Look, I will let you in on what the actual tactic is

Oh? So, there is a "tactic"?

we are uniting old school agnostic and old school atheists under a new banner to fight theists in (what some has called) a culture war.

REALLY? That's it? Well, have at it because I have no interest in any sort of "culture war". I can assure you of that. In fact, allow me to suggest a book I read many years ago entitled, "Beyond Culture Wars". You may be pleasantly surprised.

The agnostic label give the false impression that we are passive observers when we are in fact siding with the old school atheists; secondly, by making the atheist label inclusive, we hope to encourage passive observes who think "yeah, that label fits my stance, I am an atheist" to be less passive.

Okay? So, you all are attempting to enlarge the tent? Gotcha! Good luck with that. Sort of like, the denomination I was raised in, was never allowed into the "Association of Evangelicals" because there were a couple of doctrines they would not accept. However, for some reason, back during the so called "culture wars" they allowed us in, and we never changed anything? And then of course, there was "Evangelicals and Catholics Together". You heard of that one? Unbelievable! In other words, they were willing to compromise the gospel in order to unite with the goal of winning the "culture war".

Well hey! Good luck with those "culture wars".

[benchwarmer]

Incorrect.

What am I "incorrect" about?

You said:

To the best of my understanding, this change is due to the fact that there are those who would like to identify as atheist who want to shed themselves of the burden.

That's incorrect. The change is likely due to precision of language and nuance. The 'old' labels offered only 3 positions: theist, agnostic, atheist. The 'new' labels offer 4 as already explained. I'm not trying to "shed myself of the burden". I'm simply agreeing with the newer definitions and using them. I haven't picked up a burden that needs shedding.

Look, we've already established the word 'atheist' has changed with time. Look back up at the OP. It stated, regarding the title of this thread "To be clear the title of this thread is false."

i.e. the OP author (a theist) has decided for atheists what atheist means. Well, the OP is wrong.

If the point was simply to understand how modern day atheists use and the word and/or discover what their actual position is, then charging in with a claim "it's false" isn't going to get anywhere. That's really been my point. Now we seem to be arguing semantics, for what real reason I'm not sure.

There are those of us who are atheist that simply want to actually, precisely define our position.

Okay? Well, you certainly seem to agree there was indeed an established meaning of atheist, which you now seem to go on to admit you would like to change. So????? I'm not seeing where I would be "incorrect"?

Would like to change? No. It's already changed. More precisely, it has evolved. You were incorrect in assuming I want to shed a burden by using the modern definition used by modern atheists.

As explained a number of times now, one can use atheist/theist with gnostic/agnostic and arrive at 4 positions that cover more cases.

Right! But I think you would have to admit this would not have always been the case, which sort of demonstrates a new meaning, or meanings, have been made up in order to accommodate these other positions which would not have been accommodated in the past. So?????? Where am I "incorrect"?

See above.

However, you do seem to be admitting the term atheist will not completely cover it all, thus one has to apply these other terms along with the term atheist? In other words, if you simply claim to be atheist, I would be correct to understand atheist to mean "believing there is not gods", because there are indeed those who identify as such who hold this belief to which you would have to agree. Therefore, to correct my understanding of the position you hold, you will have to add something to the term atheist.

Cover it "all"? There are 2 issues at play. Belief and knowledge. Do you agree that these are separate entities? No point in going any further until we can agree on that.

[TRANSPONDER]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Since, as an atheist, I don't credit a single word of that Faith - claim, what (I really want to know) do you think it is getting you?

What is what getting me? It was posted because it addresses some of the issues raised in the preceding post, this is a thread in the Christianity and apologetics area.

Do you seriously think it's going to move someone who doesn't believe in any god?

That question never crossed my mind, I did not write it, I quoted it.

No more than it would move you to have a Muslim threaten you because you don't reverence the all -powerful Allah who created you from clots of blood (which unlike dust is at least organic).

Are you accusing me of wrongdoing? I'm not really following you.

Or is it that at some time you were converted by having a wodge of theophanic scripture dumped on you and you caved in, so you think it'll work on us? What? I'm genuinely curious.

I quoted something from the Bible in the Christianity and Apologetics area, what is your complaint exactly? perhaps its best that you contact a moderator.

Just sayin' you must know that preachery is not going to work. Why do you do it? Is it just to earn brownie points with God that you are preaching to the unbeliever even though you know it's a waste of effort? I'm truly curious, why?

I have a right in the forum to quote the Old Testament, so I really do not understand your point.

Wrongdoing? Not a bit of it. You have the right to post what you think is relevant (subject to Forum rules). And of course I'd suppose that you think this is somehow responding to the progress of the discussion. I'm just wondering how. Do you have the idea that quoting scripture is actually evidence of anything?

Well that's a great question, how do we ascertain if any text from antiquity is evidence for anything? I can't answer that very well here within this thread, I posted it to show that some of the existential issues raised about good, bad, choices etc are often embedded in scripture. In this particular case how we can't question God, we are his handiwork, the created can't dictate right and wrong to the creator, this is a philosophically important point.

P.s actually I might guess (yes the old mustwach 'Losing Faith (Theramin trees) explains. It's a game. A theist confirmation -game. You get together for mutually affirming Bibletalk and each person has to back up the other. I suspect that they come here and expect us to play that game, too.

Who are you accusing of what? might it be that this area of the forum is not for you? why participate in threads that dwell on subject matter that you disapprove of?

"Accusing" is hardly the apposite word; it is more theorizing that the Bible -game is being used here, without realising that Bible skeptics don't play with those rules.

What's a "Bible skeptic"? are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or others? and who said anything about a "rule"?

Well, I suggest you watch the video, It explains the rules very well. I've never seen it actually played but apparently it involved getting a group of Biblebods who all toss apposite scripture at one another and each skilfully fields it, adds on an apposite piece of scripture and tosses it on and the first one to 'drop the ball' as the video put is, has to eat the biscuit. Well, of course the Bible skeptic, which is not to be confused with a Bible -sceptic which isn't the same thing at all, is someone who is skeptical about the Bible. They wouldn't catch the ball so to speak and it would flop onto the floor. Of course it was just a possibility and your intent in posting Biblescrip might have been something else entirely.

Now you raise a very good point which is essentially the 'If you don't trust the Bible, you can't trust any other Book' apologetic which itself related to the 'You can't know anything for sure' apologetic which is based on 'Faith is the only sure thing', as indeed is the basis of most Bible apologetics. The point being that if indeed we couldn't trust any other book, we certainly couldn't trust the Bible. Except in taking it just on Faith and ignoring all the other books, unless of course they agreed with the Bible.

Which is rather the point because it has come to the attention of we hellbound Satanspawn that the Bible is not the fount and origin of the existential issues and good and bad choices, but borrows them from human moral and ethics and recycles them as their own, tweaked of course to the benefit of the religion. The upshot being that it's another Biblegame we don't play. Rather the game we secularists play is to thrash out ethics and morality on a secular humanist level and then see how well the Bible matches up, and so far it's not doing too well. God fell down particularly badly over the Slavery issue and the Bible apologists have had to deny that the Bible actually says what it demonstrably does say or indeed blame that all on humans, just as though they'd written it themselves, just like any of the other books one cannot trust.

[Bust Nak]

I think that we must go into that, as we know that dictionary definitions reflect a common usage whether it is correct or not. The common use of 'Theory' to mean 'hypothesis' of even just 'an opinion' is not correct in the context of a 'scientific theory' so the distinction must be pointed out and understood.

What does correct mean here, other than the English speaking community have collectively decided that scientific theory means an scientifically tested explanation? That's still just a matter of popularity. When someone misuses the word to argue that evolution is just a guess, they are incorrect in the sense that their use does not match the consensus. When enough people think that theory means "just an opinion and nothing else" then we would have to come up with a new word for evolution and such explanations. Same goes for "atheism." Many theists are incorrect in the sense that because their usage does not match the consensus.

[Bust Nak]

So you are simply pointing out what is most popular. You are not saying that said definitions are truthful definitions....just that they are definitions accepted by the majority of folk using them...

I am saying that, plus I am saying truthful definition isn't a thing because definitions are purely matters of popularity. This means bandwagon fallacy does not apply.

Re Ethical Progress...

Should it be that we assign truthfulness as the objective standard when using sounds and symbols to convey with, in order to win over the hearts of others through the settling of truth - and all things unsettled take the deserved second place to that objective.

Not sure what you are getting at here. It is objectively true that rampant murders is counter productive to civil cohesion of a society. There are ways to convince people to accept this truth, even murders themselves. Should we try to convince people of that truth? Sure.

I find that the lacking belief in gods is an untenable position to hold when superimposing it over the idea that there is a mind behind the formation of this reality. Here and Now. A Cosmic Mind.

Well, that goes without saying really. You'd hard pressed to find anyone who both lacks belief in gods and believe that there is a mind behind the formation of reality.

[Bust Nak]

Okay, well I will just start with this,

In order for you to become aware the below quote occurred on 1/7 of this year right here on this site,

Well, the burden of proof lies with the side who makes/asserts a positive claim. For the most part, the 'atheist' does not state 'god does not exist'. Heck, even Richard Dawkins has made statements that his confidence level, that a god(s) does/do not exist, is something around 6.? out of 7. Hence, it is not up to even Richard Dawkins to prove why 'god does not exist'. He simply has great doubt.

Okay, I found this on the web from an atheist web site. Be sure to click on the red which states, "atheist does not accept this claim". It sure sounds like he is making the argument I referred to.

https://www.atheistrev.com/2008/09/proo ... heism.html

Listen! I really could not care less. My whole thing is, I am fine with how anyone defines their position as long as it is not attempt to "shift the burden". If that is not your aim the we have no problems.

If you are fine with this, then why would you have problems with the two examples above? Looks to me like they are defining their position without attempting to "shift the burden." Why do you think these examples qualify as attempts at shifting the burden?

You are telling me, you have never heard anyone make the argument, "atheism is a lack of belief, and therefore owns no burden and it is the theist who owns the burden"? You've never heard one make this argument? Is that what you are saying?

No, I am not saying that. I've seen plenty of those arguments, I have made such arguments myself. To carry on from the point above, instead I am saying "atheism is a lack of belief, owns no burden and it is the theist who owns the burden" is not shifting the burden of proof. You clearly disagree, so we better sort out what on Earth is going on first.

Earlier you accepted that an atheist has no burden if he is someone who does not believe God, is simply sharing what he believes, without making any assertions which cannot be demonstrated. In the examples you provided, the authors are saying the same thing: we are not making any assertion so we don't have the burden of proof. Were you shifting the burden of proof when you said a Christian who doesn't make any assertions, own no burden?

Or asked in another way: why is the general "those who lack of belief owns no burden, and it is the ones who make assertions who owns the burden" okay, but "atheism is a lack of belief, owns no burden and it is the theist who owns the burden" suddenly not okay when the only thing that has changed is the addition of labels, specifying who lacks belief and who makes assertions?

Oh? So, there is a "tactic"?

Sure, you can call it that.

REALLY? That's it? Well, have at it because I have no interest in any sort of "culture war". I can assure you of that. In fact, allow me to suggest a book I read many years ago entitled, "Beyond Culture Wars". You may be pleasantly surprised.

"Beyond Culture Wars: Is America a Mission Field or a Battlefield?" by Horton? That seemed to be aimed at Christians. If you have no interest in the culture war, then you shouldn't have any problem with us enlarging our tent.

Okay? So, you all are attempting to enlarge the tent? Gotcha! Good luck with that. Sort of like, the denomination I was raised in, was never allowed into the "Association of Evangelicals" because there were a couple of doctrines they would not accept. However, for some reason, back during the so called "culture wars" they allowed us in, and we never changed anything? And then of course, there was "Evangelicals and Catholics Together". You heard of that one? Unbelievable! In other words, they were willing to compromise the gospel in order to unite with the goal of winning the "culture war".

Yeah, it's sort of like that, except we don't have to compromise any of our deeply held beliefs for the merger of agnostics with old school atheists. I think "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" is at least partly a response (if not the main reason) to the rise of new atheism.

[Bust Nak]

The statement "I do not hold a belief in God' is vacuous as I've said many times.

Consider what I regard as logically equivalent "I have not personally encountered evidence that leads me to develop a belief in God".

This is true of all unheld beliefs, they are unheld because no evidential justification has ever been encountered and so we have no basis for holding them...

So the pop-atheist's position is "I have absolutely no idea what evidence for God looks like but I am absolutely certain I have never encountered any".

So far so good. I accept that the up-to-date definition of atheism is vacuous.

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

Looks like a non-sequitur. How do you get from the premise "there is no set criteria for recognizing evidence for God" to your conclusion "one will never recognize genuine evidence?" Have you head of the phrase "I know it when I see it?"

That my friends, is a vacuity, that my friends is where listening to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens and Krauss will get you, a straitjacket, don't say I didn't warn you...

Why would holding a vacuous position lead to a straitjacket? You seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions.