To our lurkers and new arrivals

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

I could say the same for theists of course, as every single time I have asked them for objective evidence or rational arguments for a deity, they present subjective claims and irrational arguments, just as you have of course.

This is very simple, we need some objective criteria, we can’t rely on your secret magic process and subjective claim that you can recognize evidence while all the time sharing nothing of the process you use to categorize said evidence.

If you don’t have any objective criteria then you have no place asking for evidence, if you do have objective criteria please share it with us so that I can then provide suitable examples of evidence.

Laughable, and you will note of course that I have asked him repeatedly to share his own method, and guess what, that’s right he has nothing, quelle surprise.

Then he rants at being labelled dishonest.

@CyberLN

Here’s a few: is it measurable, is it repeatable, is it verifiable? Now, you will either pony up or come up with some other reason not to provide examples of what you claim is evidence. Up to you.

Here is where @CyberLN gave him some criteria for assessing his claims, and just look at how dishonest the response is:

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s a start. But what do you mean “repeatable”?

He focuses on just one criteria and starts offering straw man excuses as to why that criteria isn’t infallible.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I want to show evidence but need an objective statement of what characteristics you look for so that I can then select evidence.

@CyberLN just gave you one, I gave you one 7 months ago, that you "demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support any claims. He lied for months that no one had done this of course, and when he eventually did acknowledge the criteria, guess what, he came up with a raft of lame excuses and obfuscation again to spin the debate away from supplying any objective evidence. Using facile semantics to claim all evidence is subjective, and when I point out it is not equally subjective, he just ignored it, and kept dishonestly obfuscating, anything to peddle his poisoning of the well fallacy, that atheists are biased, and therefore evidence is pointless. Note how that claim directly contradicts his claim that he was here to convince neutral readers, who are not part of his fallacious no true Scotsman subgroup that only contains atheists, odd that, well perhaps not that odd really when you think about it.