🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), richard@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard
Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:

>In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8m9o@4ax.com>,
>lunch@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
>
>> >Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally 
>> dogmatic
>> >that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of the 
>> truth,
>> >despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a decent 
>> set of
>> >repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
>> 
>> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
>> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
>> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not believe 
>> in
>> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not 
>> exist?
>
>I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to insist
>on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims to,
>that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the marked
>similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the beliefs
>of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they want to,
>but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
>arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
>evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.

Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the theists
have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of the
theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A does
not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims, the
flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim is
false.