(July 19, 2012 at 11:59 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: You define it as such because you have no evidence to support the belief that there is no God.
One: we don't have 'the belief that there is no God'. I assume from your ability to post that you're not a complete moron, so I won't repeat yet again the distinction between 'I don't believe X' and 'I believe not X'.
I define it as such because I'm a rational skeptic, and we tend to be cautious about our claims. I won't state absolutely that no Bigfoot exists, although I don't believe one does. It's not to evade the burden of proof, it's because I acknowledge that there's a possibility that Bigfoot exists. I just don't think the evidence available is nearly enough to conclude that Bigfoot is real. I don't even state absolutely that leprechauns don't exist.
But I'll play the 'assign motives to other people that imply they're lying about their reasons' game: You insist we are trying to evade the burden of proof because you know that you can't meet the burden of proof and are yourself trying to evade the burden of proof.
Will you even define the God you claim there's no evidence against?
