Andrew the Atheist wonders if Tim knows how to read.

Tim, if you haven’t read my responses to your insanely ridiculous idea that atheists need to provide positive proof there is no god, you have not been paying attention.  I have addressed this over and over and over and over.  You keep stating this as though it is a valid point, and it is not.  You are not getting it.  I’ve tried to explain this to you nicely, using metaphor and example, over and over.  Here’s a quick re-cap.  You can find all these quotes in my previous posts here in this blog.

In my very FIRST post in this blog, I said:

"If we cannot prove the existence of god, we HAVE NO GOOD REASON for believing he exists." You may have bad reasons, but without evidence, you have no good reason for believing it.

In my post about Thor, I said:

Your argument is bad logic, and you seem to know it.  It is an argument from ignorance, just as you suggest.  The argument from ignorance fallacy is NOT that if the atheist cannot disprove god, then god must exist.  That fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one considering the claim.  The argument from ignorance states that if I have no answer for how the universe began, then it is rational to assume a god or deity is the reason the universe began.  That IS indeed the argument you make, and that is why it fails before you even state it fully.

Then I began the Dragon in my Pants argument:

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

I said that because I said faith is delusional:

If you have evidence, what need have you of faith?  If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking?  For example, take the claim the sun is a star.  You have evidence that this is true.  Do you believe it  is based on faith?  Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact.  The person doesn't believe you.  Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence?  Say you present your evidence does not convince the person.  Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence?  When is faith needed?  When evidence is lacking

And in the next post:

Now, the atheist has no requirement to prove gods do not exist.  Remember what happened when I asserted I have a dragon in my pants?  What happened?  No one believed me.  People demanded real evidence and did not accept my anecdote.  So should it be with gods, and I think gods should be HARDER to prove than a dragon in my pants.

And the next:

Now, if you insist that I must disprove your god to be an atheist, please disprove SMAD, Godzilla, and the dragon in my pants.  Then, I’ll use your method.

And the next:

Now, I have also asked you to disprove SMAD.  When you can, I'll just use your method to disprove your god. Until then, by your logic, and your positions, you should believe the SMAD exists.  You have no way to show it does not.  I have provided evidence it exists.  So it should be more rational to believe the SMAD is real than to be an atheist in regards to SMAD.  You don't think so?  Why not?  I assert it is only because your god claims are more familiar than the dragon claims.  While they both hold as much weight as each other, you find your beliefs to be rational only because they are more familiar, not because they are actually rational.

Now that I look at all these, I wonder, did you ever really address any of these rebuttals?  Or did you just ignore them?   Did you just brush them off like you did with Mande’s beautifully written rebuttal to the question of purpose?  That was a phenomenal piece, poignant and insightful.  You pissed her away without even acknowledging her points. 

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the definition of atheism you are using is only accurate when you address me, not atheists in general.  I am a strong atheist.  I believe god does not exist.  That is different than weak atheism, which would mean I do not believe a god exists.  There is a difference.  Strong atheism asserts no gods; weak atheism rejects the belief in gods.  The difference is subtle, but important, at least, to the atheist community.

Again, I am a strong atheist, so your point is valid but only to me, not to the other atheists on the blog.  And to this I retort, you don’t think dragons are real.  You think they are imaginary.  You are a strong adraconist.  Or are you agnostic toward the dragon in my pants? 

Oh, and the agnostic thing.  I don’t believe in agnostics.  I don’t think they exist.  Every self-described agnostic I’ve ever met has either been a pussy atheist or a pussy theist.