Obviously not! Go read my post until you understand it.

The problem of evil isn't exactly evidence, certainly not in the empirical sense. Besides, if you wanted to use an argument, you could have picked a much better argument than that!

Remember Leibniz'? Do babies with cancer and Tsunamis get you down? All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds!

No, you're more likely to remember "Bevis and Butthead": "You need stuff that sucks to have stuff that's cool".

You let me down.

Are you implying that scripting is inherently insecure?

LOL

Well said. It was way ahead of it's time.

That depends on what you mean by 'evidence', doesn't it? Still, I'm curious as to what you think qualifies.

That would be one screwed up kid.

If you take a moment to think about it, you'll realize that most of the things you believe, you believe without any evidence.

Deny it if you like, but that would put you square in the 'delusional' camp.

Where did you get that from?

I can agree with that. I may have been overreaching.

There's evidence, for example, that god doesn't exist? That would be some pretty big news. (Not just for religious people; think of the consequences for science, philosophy, etc.) Did I miss the Slashdot headline?

Unless your comment was just out of context, and you really do mean that the kid is exposed to evidence that suggests that their parents are pathological liars. That's a different story.

First, being able to posit a naturalistic explanation does not make that explanation scientific. Science does not work that way.

As to your links, try reading them. You'll quickly discover why the second falls under the above, and the first does not address the parents claim.

On your ridiculous "begging the question" paragraph: You couldn't possibly be more wrong. To commit the fallacy "begging the question" you must be making a logical argument in which one of the premises assumes the conclusion. You used the term in an informal way, but not in such a way as it relates to the (or any other) logical fallacy. Nor was the parent making a logical argument and could therefore not have committed a logical fallacy in the first place.

I blame the late great Carl Sagan for his well-intentioned (but worse than useless) baloney detection kit. It popularized the concept of logical fallacies, but didn't popularize logic! Now, every autodidact science cheerleader on the internet thinks they understand formal logic and what a logical fallacy is (even though they haven't a clue) and misuse them (and those they completely make-up) at every opportunity.

When I see someone say "logical fallacy" on the internet now, I assume that they're a moron. It's worked out well so far. I just wish I could get them to stop spreading anti-scientific nonsense under the guise of "improving" the public understanding of science.

Sure, but it does not in any way address the parents comment! Did you not understand him or are you being purposefully obtuse?

Oh, you actually think that your post was coherent? Too funny!

No, it does not. You're clearly confused. Science does not work that way.

That's completely outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

That's also not a scientific statement. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's not science.

I'm tempted to call you delusional, but I'll stick with "woefully misinformed".

How about:

"Also like how Internet Atheists believe that they are expert historians, archaeologists, theologians, geologists, biologists, and physicists because other people agree with them."

Even better:

"Also like how Internet People believe that they are expert historians, archaeologists, theologians, geologists, biologists, and physicists because other people agree with them."

That's a neat game, loads of fun.

Oh, you thought you were saying something insightful? Sorry about that.

I don't know about that. If a kid suddenly decides that everything their parents told them was a lie, I'd say that the kid was clearly delusional.

You can't reason with the bottom 10% of skeptics like that. They can't handle anything outside the pitifully simple rhetoric handed down to them by the big-names that, well, are quite obviously taking advantage of their ignorance.

They tend to be positivists (the philosophical equivalent of geocentrists) which should indicate to you that they're not well equipped to handle things like science, evidence, reason, and logic.

The best they can do (and they genuinely feel important doing this) is to shout simple slogans like "religious people are delusional" and "ghosts don't exists" as though they were saying something unique, interesting, or informative.

They're a lost cause. You can't make them think.

I was as well. I really don't like the guy I was in my late teens and early 20's.

Arrogance seems to stem from unrealized ignorance. At least that's how it was in my case. Being a big fish in a small pond certainly didn't help. Having everyone around you tell you how great you are doesn't exactly encourage you to grow personally or professionally.