So you confess Positivism. The belief that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. A view which itself cannot be shown to be true scientifically ergo it is false by its own standards or at best trivially true(i.e. if you recognize Philosophy as a legitimate science which it is).

AG Flew at the height of his Atheism in the 1950's abandoned this view as hopelessly incoherent.

So show me "evidence" Positivism is true scientifically (without circular argument) if you can. You will fail. Outside of Rosenberg no Atheist philosopher would hold such an absurd view. You might as well say you believe the world was made in literally 144 hours(6 days) and be done with it.

I told you yer Atheism was low brow and unsophisticated. Here you prove it touting positivism.

Classic Theists who believe God is NOT a Scientific Question but a Philosophical One only.

Translation: ''We have absolutely no evidence for our ridiculous claims and we know it, but we will continue to punt the bullshit as it's good for business.''

So, pick one of his arguments and refute it

See answer above.

I've studied Catholic doctrine for 30 years. Son yer not even at David Nickol's level. Being a cultural Catholic is no different then Dawkins being a cultural Christian.

>The foundation for his atheism is the lack of belief based on lack of evidence..

Which is a good basis for rejecting theistic personalism , ID and other non-Classic Versions of Theism and or so called "Scientific Theism". But this is a non-starter for Classic Theists who believe God is NOT a Scientific Question but a Philosophical One only.

>Of course he uses philosophical arguments - surely you noticed he is a philosopher?

No really I thought he was some troll on the Internet?;-) Yer silly at this point.

>I don't need to - or am particularly interested in bothering. Philosophy is not part of my... and excuse me for using your pithy phrase... "Skill set".

That is perfectly fine but yet you insist on offering lame objections to Classic Theism and Catholicism from a willful place of ignorance? That is like a YEC telling an Evolutionist he doesn't have to learn Biology or know anything about science but insists on arguing against it anyway. I've seen that happen before and in every case the YEC looks silly. Then there is you here arguing against Classic Theistic version of Christianity and you won't learn philosophy?

At least Michael Bene knows biology when he attemtps to argue against Evolution. You know less about Atheist philosophy. So what good are you?

Yer just a wee mad ladd at this point.

>So, pick one of his arguments and refute it

No you pick one. Do yer own homework.

I stand by my previous comment. If the Church still numbers him as a Catholic and he considers he is then this is good enough for me.

The foundation for his atheism is the lack of belief based on lack of evidence - a point he raises -
Of course he uses philosophical arguments - surely you noticed he is a philosopher?
I don't need to - or am particularly interested in bothering. Philosophy is not part of my... and excuse me for using your pithy phrase... "Skill set".
So, pick one of his arguments and refute it, if you can. Somehow I don't think you are skilled enough,
but I'm willing to be surprised.

No he formulates defeaters(or tries too) for philosophical arguments for the existence of God and believing his defeaters are successful or reasonable thinks it is safe to doubt the existence of God. He would only employ an appeal to a lack of quantitative evidence if he was focusing on an ID view of divinity (which we Classic Theists already reject).

Why don't you read him and try to learn his arguments instead of all the lame pop psych crap? Are ye that lazy? Obviously you are not to mention unwell.

I gave you the link. Yer denying what is right in front of you. He is a cultural Catholic but so what? Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian doesn't mean he is not an Atheist and Bill is clearly an ex-Catholic.

Yer irrational at this point.

Oppy is extremely erudite. However, as an atheist he rejects theism based on the lack of evidence, a point he argues quite well.
If you are unable to muster an original example of "sophisticated atheism" , why not use one of Oppy's takedowns of theism and see if you can rebutt it?

Not according to Bill, and not according to the Catholic Church.
You can study it til you drop dead - but you're wrong.