Do Atheists refuse to answer questions?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He is not real to you, that does not mean that he is not real to other people,

He did not suggest otherwise.

again why you think that your own perspective is the defacto standard maybe a good place to start.
He did not say his perspective was the defacto standard.

Its echoed here by many other atheists as well, Agers, googlefudge, twithead to name but a few. (I apologise if I have missed anyone)
When have I have claimed it is the defacto standard?

Perhaps that might be a pertinent question, why do atheists have trouble accepting that other people have a different perspective/reality than themselves and that their perspective is not the ultimately definitive stance.
I have no such trouble. It seems that almost all the questions so far in this thread are, as JS357 points out, loaded questions with a claim that the questioner knows the responder does not accept included in the question.

I think that atheists should accept the fact that theirs is an intellectual stance for which they have little or no compelling evidence
How does that follow from anything you said up to here?

(the existence or non existence of God which cannot be proven or disproven)
I consider the existence of God disproven.

and should simply accept that its a perspective like any other and not that an appealing one either.
It may not be appealing to you, but the truth is appealing to me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He is not real to you, that does not mean that he is not real to other people, again why you think that your own perspective is the defacto standard maybe a good place to start. Its echoed here by many other atheists as well, Agers, googlefudge, twithead to name but a few. (I apologise if I have missed anyone)

Perhaps that might be a pertinent qu ...[text shortened]... should simply accept that its a perspective like any other and not that an appealing one either.

I have legitimate reasons to not believe, such as scientific evidence contradicting the Bible, as well as contradictions within the bible itself (God claims to be perfect, despite the many evils he does, like killing children).

My position isn't an arbitrary one dependent on feelings and emotion like many Christians. My position = based on evidence, Christian beliefs = based on falsehoods like creationism.

Notice how there was not even one question on this thread that atheists didn't answer IMMEDIATELY.

I wish Christians here would be just as mature.

Originally posted by vivify
I have legitimate reasons to not believe, such as scientific evidence contradicting the Bible, as well as contradictions within the bible itself (God claims to be perfect, despite the many evils he does, like killing children).

My position isn't an arbitrary one dependent on feelings and emotion like many Christians. My position = based on evidence, Christian beliefs = based on falsehoods like creationism.

There is no scientific evidence which contradicts the Bible. Either you don't understand the science or you do not understand the Bible. The only difference is whether life originated from non living matter or was a deliberate act of creation. There are also no contradictions in the Bible there is only your morality and the morality of the Bible and while we are on the subject of killing children why is it we never hear of you talking of the morality of killing unborn infants 150,000 of which will be denied life this very day the main reason being social inconvenience? Hmmm, the Bible forbids killing unborn children but you don't? So dont get us any of your wash about Gods morality you are in no position to judge anyone's morality but your own.

You have no evidence for your assertion that God exists or does not exist, do you understand? it cannot be proven or disproved and your stance is therefore not based on evidence despite your ludicrous clams to the contrary.

Your assertion regarding creationism = falsehood is simply nonsense, in fact it appears to most rational people that life begets life and that its impossible to get life from a sterile environment (proven by Pasteur), mathematically the chances of life have arisen by chance are so astronomically huge its the equivalent of finding a fully functioning boeing 747 ready assembled and functioning in a junk yard, so dont give us your 'i have a rational basis and you do not', all you have is what appears to you to be more plausible and that is it.

Originally posted by vivify
Notice how there was not even one question on this thread that atheists didn't answer IMMEDIATELY.

I wish Christians here would be just as mature.

Who do you think you are to demand anything from anyone? Do yo think you are royalty and a christian is under duress to answer your questions immediately? Seriously its a noteworthy aspect of Atheism that it focus is entirely on self, perhaps this is the reason why you think everyone should adhere to the same standards as you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no scientific evidence which contradicts the Bible.

First light then stars?

Originally posted by C Hess
First light then stars?

Why must I battle against your ignorance of the Bible Mr. Hess? from what perspective was the Biblical author viewing the light? and while you have a think about that ask yourself what kind of light it was for the Bible is rather specific.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
from what perspective was the Biblical author viewing the light?

Light is light. It's not a matter of perspective.

Also, are you saying that the word of the bible is that of the authors? 😕

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no scientific evidence which contradicts the Bible.

Bible: humans were created from dust. Science: humans evolved from ape ancestors.

Seems like a contradiction to me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Who do you think you are to demand anything from anyone? Do yo think you are royalty and a christian is under duress to answer your questions immediately? Seriously its a noteworthy aspect of Atheism that it focus is entirely on self, perhaps this is the reason why you think everyone should adhere to the same standards as you?

No one is forcing you to take part in this or any discussion. However, if atheists consistently oblige to answer theists with questions designed to either promote their beliefs or cast doubt on the opposition, isn't it only fair that theists do the same?

It would be nice if just one Christian here acknowledged that atheists reliably answer questions from theists, contrary to Christians doing the same with atheists.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

We have free will to love, to hate, to believe, to not believe, or to not give a crap. So what? Who cares?

YouTube

Over in debates, Applechess thought he would 'turn the tables' because he felt that atheists were pressuring theists to answer questions, so he would try asking atheists questions. Sadly, he started out rather like most of the questions in this thread, by making assertions that are not agreed to part of his question. Further, instead of listening to the answers, he chose to argue about the definition of the word 'atheist' and whether it is a belief system and refused to converse with anyone who gave him answers to his questions that he did not like.

David Hume had something to say about miracles.

"... The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html

But some people's temperaments are just the opposite. They are drawn to awe and wonder, to a dramatic world view, where they are part of a grand story, forces of good pitted against forces of evil etc. etc.