necoandjeff wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>>Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>>Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Brett Robson" <deep_m_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:cmmmk3$qas$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How is atheism any less based on faith and therefore any less
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ridiculous?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's quite cute hearing religious people desperately trying to
>>>>>equate atheism with religion by using terms such as faith.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I agree that the active disbelief in any sort of deity is
>>>>based on
>>>>faith. It must be faith, unless the negative -- no deity exists --
>>>>can be proved. It does not require faith to assume no deity exists
>>>>as the null hypothesis, but to *believe* this to be the case
>>>>requires faith.
>>>
>>>
>>>What a warped piece of logic.
>>
>>How is it warped logic? Indeed, atheism is based on the logical
>>fallacy with the fancy Latin name of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Of
>>course, so is every other religion.
>>
>>
>>>I also believe that leprechauns don't
>>>throw parties in the refrigerator after I close the door, only to
>>>disappear the moment I open it. Does that require faith as well?
>>
>>Unless the proposition can be proven true or false, it requires faith
>>to believe in the positive or the negative.
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous logic Kevin. You don't need faith to *not* believe in the
> existence of something for which you believe there is no evidence. 

That is not the same thing, as Ryan has already explained. It is one 
thing to say, "There is no evidence for X, therefore I have no opinion 
of the existence of X", but quite another to say, "There is no evidence 
for X, therefore anyone who believes X exists is an idiot". The former 
expresses neutrality, while the other takes a position based on belief 
and faith, not knowledge.

> KWW's
> example of leprachauns in the refrigerator is one example of an infinite
> number of things that I don't believe exist because there isn't a shred of
> evidence to support it. Are you saying you're an agnostic regarding
> leprachauns in the frig? 

I am saying that I do not know whether or not leprechauns exist in his 
refrigerator, or anywhere else. Inductive reasoning would lead me to 
*believe* that leprechauns do not exist in his fridge, but I do not 
*know*. There is a very good reason why it is called inductive reasoning.

> You're trying to equating the perfectly rational
> act of extrapolating a series of disbeliefs into a conclusion regarding the
> non-existence of a class of something (atheism) with an affirmative belief
> in something for which there is no proof, and even in the face of evidence
> to the contrary if necessary (faith).

Yes, because both are beliefs, not known facts. I still fail to see why 
you don't admit that atheism is not less based on faith than any other 
religion. I won't think any less of you.

-- 
Kevin
"This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National 
Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST