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. 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? 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).

Jeff