"Thus far you've offered me nothing but your own say-so"
Okay, you're so wrapped up in "winning" now that you're not even keeping up with the discussion. At the bottom of my last note was a link to an example, but it looks like you didn't even read the note before starting to write.
"As I said, I can use the fact that I've not encountered any atheists who use evolution as a disproof"
None? Not one? That's not credible. You reject my "many if not most," but don't hesitate to assert an absolute of your own.
"of all gods"
More kindergarten theology.
"my "evidence" would be just as valid and grounded as yours."
Actually, no it wouldn't. I'm a more reliable and objective observer.
"What illegal activities?"
Secretly taping classroom activities and student counseling sessions.
"I asked you to provide a link to an online discussion where an atheist made a claim that you attribute to "many" atheists. That's hardly a clinical study, and it certainly wouldn't be illegal. Why did you ignore that request?"
A better question would be, why didn't you read to the bottom of the note before wasting time and bandwidth writing that?
"Wouldn't it be easier for you just to admit that you made an unsubstantiated assertion and be done with it?"
Possibly, but I don't take the easier path. I try to find the truth, even when it requires me to admit that I have been wrong. You should try it some time.
"Why all of this verbose and heavy-handed nonsense in an attempt to justify making unsubstantiated assertions that are almost certainly false?"
Missed the point again, eh? Let me spell it out: you try to present your demands for "sustantiation" as intellectually rigorous, but in reality you just use that as an excuse for dismissing inconvenient arguments.
"Yes. Prove otherwise."
Sorry, the default answer is "no."
"What if I did have some kind of starting bias, like believing that atheism stems from evil?"
You know, the practice of misrepresenting carefully considered and mature opinions as "starting biases" interferes with the seach for the truth. Oh, and it is also indicative of the influence of evil.
"What melt-down?"
Read "The Closing of the American Mind."
"Look, I get it, you got caught in a lie."
I'm sorry. I thought I was discussing this matter with an intellectually honest person. My mistake.
"Uh, could you reference a specific post where that occured, or are you going to say "do your own research" and then when I fail to find anything accuse me of having a bias?"
If I didn't know that your refusal to scan the first few posts in the thread arises from malice, I would accuse you of being lazy.
"To support your claim."
No, to find the truth.
"There's nothing wrong with rejecting claims when the person making the claim absolutely refuses to substantiate it."
You are in the position of a person sitting in a windowless room in midtown Manhattan on busy weekday, who, when told that if he goes out on the street he will see many people on the sidewalk, answers, "No, I'm not moving. You prove it to me." All he has to do is walk out of the building and he will see for himself, but instead he folds his arms, sticks out his lower lip, and says, "I'm not going to do your research for you."
"I can assert that I've made all kinds of observations, but that doesn't amount to evidence of anything."
Interesting. When you said your experience was different from mine, I accepted that at face value. I didn't call you a liar. You, on the other hand, discount mine.
"I see nothing unscientific..."
That's pretty sad. I think I'm done with this for now.