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.

Because it denies the possibility of concluding the non-existence of 
magical beings, as opposed to assuming the non-existence. You don't need 
Latin to describe the fallacy religions are based on: in simple English, 
religion is based on making things up.

> 
>> 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.
> 
I think you stretch the definition of "faith" beyond its limits. Just as 
there is no evidence for refrigerator leprechauns, there is no evidence 
for the existence of deities. To conclude that two people are using 
equivalent logic when once believe in refrigerator leprechauns and one 
concludes that they do not exist is pretty strange reasoning. To extend 
it to someone that claims to be able to tell you what refrigerator 
leprechauns look like, what they like, what their hobbies are, etc. is 
just ridiculous.

Just think of how much fun you would have ripping a new asshole into 
someone that believed in these things in the face of a complete absence 
of evidence in their support. If, for example, someone posted about how 
they were convinced that they had magic pieces of bread that turned into 
human flesh when consumed, you wouldn't be able to stop laughing at 
them, except for the fact that you believe it yourself.

Do me a favor: next communion, go home and puke afterwards. See the 
bread chunk? See the grape juice? Are you going to claim it magically 
turn back into bread if you vomit?

> I'm guess you didn't do so hot in the logical reasoning/arguments 
> section of the LSAT. Er, LLS *does* require the LSAT, doesn't it?
Actually, I scored in the 95th percentile. Just walked in and took it.
KWW