Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Jax Agnesson]

Weird that I don't discuss Stalin or Mao, with this being a religious discussion site, and them being allegedly not religious. Inexplicable, innit?

C'mon Jax, I expect more from you than sarcastic quips. I don't mind the sarcasm, I mind the lack of real content.

An observation that subject x is not relevant to the current discussion necessarily is a bit short of content.

but you have plenty of time to post about much lesser offenses by theists. This reveals your concern is with promoting your ideology, not with violence etc.

This is a total red herring,

It's not a red herring at all, it's a totally relevant point.

I demonstrate that your contributions to this discussion are inconsistent with your beliefs about the futility of the discussion. You do not attempt to respond to that. (Unsurprising.) And now you want to change the subject. Stalin. Mao. US foreign policy. All stuff I might be glad to debate in a more appropriate forum.
Meanwhile, my position on the subject at hand is as follows.
I do not believe that attempting to 'prove' the nonexistence of Gods is likely to succeed.
I have no wish to persuade anyone that gods do not exist.
Until the recent re-emergence of political fundamentalism onto the British and US political scene, I had little interest in discussion of religious matters at all.
My current approach to the internet discussions on such matters consists almost entirely of trying always to stress the difference between religious belief, which I see as a kind of social and spiritual aesthetic, to be defended as an aspect of our right to freedom of thought and expression; and religious authoritarianism, which I see as a cynical ploy by power-mongers intent on infringing human rights.
As for the debates about whether gods actually exist or not, (as in the present thread) I will engage in as a kind of philosophical sporting exercise.
Now. If you want to engage with me, engage with me. If all you want to do is set up the same old row of 'atheist' strawmen, and blast away at them with the same old blunderbus, carry on by all means, but
1. Try to find some more interesting buckshot; and
2. Don't try to hang my name around the neck of one of your scarecrows. It just makes you look silly, and a bit sad. As if you would love to destroy my actual arguments, but you don't really understand them.

One last time, (and please take your time reading this:)
I do not care what sorts of religious beliefs people hold.
I am concerned with human rights.
If people use political dogmas to infringe human rights, I challenge them.
If people use religious dogmas to infringe human rights, I challenge them.
I personally don't believe that Gods are either probable or necessary; and I am happy to explain how I reached that position, if asked.
I will sometimes join in religious or philosophical debates, on more or less any subject.
I believe it is in the nature of philosophical debate that the subject matter is usually something currently considered undecidable; if something is established with any certainty, it ceases to be a philosophical question, and becomes a piece of information; mere data, and the material property of other intellectual disciplines.
If a poster makes a clear statement of her position, then I try to engage with that poster as an individual, on the basis of her stated position, and not on the basis of some cartoon stereotype character that I have invented, for target practice.

Now. You are free to pretend that my stated beliefs are not my actual beliefs, and continue to attack the beliefs you are generating in your own head.
Or you can make the intellectual effort to read all the way through my statement above, and challenge anything you disagree with.
(You are allowed to use a dictionary, or phone a friend, if you are having difficulty with anything in my statement. Just remember, it's better to ask than to struggle along trying to argue against something you have misunderstood.)
All best. Jax.

[Philbert]

Is going to college waste of time, unless you have credible evidence that you can pass all the necessary courses? I reckon that it's worth a shot if there is a fair chance of passing, which can then be inferred from the success of others, don't you think?

Ok, let's do a review and see what we know.

1) There is no evidence you are currently persuasive on these topics.

2) There is evidence you would like to be persuasive on these topics.

Fair enough?

If yes, then the next question might be, what's involved in becoming persuasive?

Is this reasonable?

[Philbert]

I demonstrate that your contributions to this discussion are inconsistent with your beliefs about the futility of the discussion. You do not attempt to respond to that.

I've responded to this, and voluntarily disclaimed it, a number of times, and it's becoming tiresome you claiming I haven't.

As I've repeatedly said, I see no evidence that thousands of years of the theist vs. atheist debate is accomplishing anything. Thus, I see it as futile.

It's probably also futile for me to make that statement, as nobody here is interested in evidence, they just like to say the word evidence a lot.

Thus, I grant we are all, me included, most likely engaged in a futile exercise.

Now that I've said this to you personally at least ten times, could you please remember it?

[instantc]

1) There is no evidence you are currently persuasive on these topics.

There are good reasons to believe that the collective effort in this forum is yielding fruits.

[Philbert]

There are good reasons to believe that the collective effort in this forum is yielding fruits.

Ok then, please provide the list of names this forum has converted from theism to atheism.

[instantc]

There are good reasons to believe that the collective effort in this forum is yielding fruits.

Ok then, please provide the list of names this forum has converted from theism to atheism.

I didn't say I have evidence that it has worked, I said I have good reasons to believe this is generally a working concept.

[Philbert]

I didn't say I have evidence that it has worked, I said I have good reasons to believe this is generally a working concept.

No evidence = no belief.

Perhaps you are familiar with this concept....

[instantc]

I didn't say I have evidence that it has worked, I said I have good reasons to believe this is generally a working concept.

No evidence = no belief.

Perhaps you are familiar with this concept....

I think that's a rubbish epistemology, practiced by many people here but not so many in real life. Belief is justified if there are sufficient reasons for that belief.

[Philbert]

I think that's a rubbish epistemology, practiced by many people here but not so many in real life. Belief is justified if there are sufficient reasons for that belief.

Ah, I get it now.

No evidence = no belief is a good system in regards to OTHER PEOPLE'S assertions, but....

It's rubbish epistemology when applied to one's own assertions.

Of course! What was I thinking??? Thanks for straightening me out on all this!

[Jax Agnesson]

I demonstrate that your contributions to this discussion are inconsistent with your beliefs about the futility of the discussion. You do not attempt to respond to that.

I've responded to this, and voluntarily disclaimed it, a number of times, and it's becoming tiresome you claiming I haven't.

As I've repeatedly said, I see no evidence that thousands of years of the theist vs. atheist debate is accomplishing anything. Thus, I see it as futile.

It's probably also futile for me to make that statement, as nobody here is interested in evidence, they just like to say the word evidence a lot.

Thus, I grant we are all, me included, most likely engaged in a futile exercise.

Now that I've said this to you personally at least ten times, could you please remember it?

[/quote] Fair point, Phil. I was using present tense, discussing our most recent exchange specifically, in which you didn't respond to my note about that futility, but changed the subject.
Broadly though, I am happy to admit that you are correct on this point; you say repeatedly that the a/theist debate is futile. In fact you rarely seem to say anything of substance apart from that one point. And recently you have been admitting that your repeated assertion of the debate's futility is also futile. Which development I welcome. I merely remarked that it seemed inconsistent that you then demand that others (adamant atheists) provide evidence that their efforts produce results.
Anyway. Now that we've cleared that up. Can I expect an agreement that you will refrain from your tiresome strawmanning of my position?