"DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote: 
>
>Don't need to.  How many times do you need it explained?
> 
>
>There is not a scintilla of evidence for God.  Any explanation involving
>"God" therefore has an awful lot of justifying to do.  Thus far not one has
>ever passed the test.
> 
>
>As has already been explained, the situation is not binary.  The two
>arguments are not of equal weight and atheists are not making any "leap of
>faith" as theists are.  I don't know about David but I get so tired having
>to repeat this elementary stuff over and over again.

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it any more
true, yet that simple axiom seems to have bypassed you during your
developmental years.  And if you claim affirmatively that "there is no
god," rather than stating "I don't believe in god," you engage in a
leap of faith.  Stating otherwise violates traditional logical tenets.
Here's why:

*Argumentum ad ignorantium* is a logical fallacy wherein the proponent
claims that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false, OR that it is false because it has not been proved
true.  An affirmative assertion that "there is no god" proposes that
the existence of God is false because it has not yet been proved true,
and thus qualifies as *argumentum ad ignorantium*.

To put it more succinctly, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

The issue is burden of proof.  Agnostics and weak atheists
(nontheists) have no burden of proof because they claim only lack of
knowledge or lack of belief.  Theists and strong atheists make
affirmative assertions of god/no-god.  They bear the burden of proof.
Once the burden of proof has been established, the fallacy of
*argumentum ad ignorantium* can be applied to any argument in favor of
the proponent.

An explanation of burden of proof in logical argumentation regarding
the existence of a god can be found here:

http://www.objectivethought.com/ath..urdenproof.html

The fact that these logical ideals conflict with your personal faith
in the nonexistence of any god does not make them any less valid.

>Go over to the Atheism
>Web.  It's all covered there in a lot more detail.

We are not referring you to theist web sites to prove our assertions.
Why do you demand that we undergo indoctrination in your religion?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]