Would you indulge me and provide this checklist? I understand it's your personal checklist, and not applicable to all who are not theists, but it would aid my understanding.

Sure. It's not exactly formal and mixes various types of deity (theistic, deistic, etc) but there's a lot of overlap and I'm guessing you don't need a spreadsheet (and tough luck if you do, really ).

[ ] Observed evidence of supernatural events (ie, 'miracles')

[ ] Observed evidence of design in biological forms

[ ] Observed evidence of design in the universe as a whole

[ ] Experienced sensation of 'presence' or 'something there', etc

[ ] Prepared to accept unevidenced claims of any of the above, as applicable

[ ] Able to make real sense of the claim 'There is a god'

You might say the first three are the same. I might be pushed to agree on design in biology, I suppose. I don't think it's an entirely worthless distinction, however. And I'd regard the design of the universe as predating the 'natural world' so I couldn't see it as 'supernatural' in the sense the term is normally used.

Edit: Also possible I've forgotten a couple, but those are enough on their own.

I guess we'll have to wait to see what Stu Pidasso meant. Maybe a message buried in pi is a good example of a non-supernatural event, however I don't know that it's evidence for God.

EDIT: Ok yeah I do. If it was the bible encoded there or something. I was wrong - I wouldnt call this a supernatural event, but would call it evidence for God. Cheers

Yeah I don't think I was right. Irrespective, the second question is odd - not many atheists would say they expect that. Presumably he meant "Why do atheists consider that any putative God should have left non-supernatural evidence?"

given our loose definition of 'supernatural' i cant figure out what 'non-supernatural evidence' would now mean.

How about morse code in the umpteen billionth digits of pi spelling out the bible? Calculating those digits is not supernatural and "the digits of pi" doesnt seem like an event to me.

Discovering some fact about the natural world which pointed in an unequivocal way to one of the revealed religions' Gods would be evidence of God (even if there are other competing theories).

oh ok. i didnt realize those kinds of things would not be considered supernatural. but sure, those things would be very compelling.

ive sorta lost what we were arguing about now though... = /

oh i remember now. so the question is why do atheists expect god should have left that kind of evidence.

edit: this question boils down to why we demand ANY evidence. but why would we not want evidence? how can i believe without a reason to believe? its not that i think god should have left evidence. its just that im left in the position of having no evidence, and hence, no reason to believe.

Do harder drugs

Impossible to say. Maybe he's a prick, maybe he's a nice guy. Maybe he accidentally made the universe. As long as worshiping him doesn't keep a smart person from discovering the cure for cancer, or make someone think it's OK to put a bomb on a plane, I'm OK with worship, but I have no idea whether he would want us to worship him or, if he did, whether I'd want to or should, and I don't understand how anyone can come to a conclusion either way.

For those who would demand to be worshiped if THEY were god, it's an easy enough conclusion for them to think that god would also demand worship as well.

Suppose a reality exist in which 6th graders can use computers to simulate worlds like ours and we are living in a simulated reality. A certain precentage of the simulated worlds are going to have gods who are pricks.

I suspect you would even have worlds in which the god interacted with his world for a time and then got bored and let it run on its own while he went and watched porn.

Sky-god religions do seem to have an air of authoritarianism about them.