Christians

[Ryft]

I take it you are trying to point out a contradiction as well, yes?

That is indeed a contradiction. His signature explicitly states, "God does not exist"—and yet to Rhizo he states, "I'm not saying [God] does not exist." One of those statements must be incorrect, because as they stand it is a logical contradiction. Given his explanation to Rhizo, the incorrect statement is his signature (and should be changed).

Furthermore, how is it a fallacy when God has never been proven with infallible evidence? All you have is a skill with words but that is hardly enough for us to believe in this God. We need irrefutable proof that he is very much real and cannot be denied.

First, it is a fallacy in virtue of affirming ¬P on the basis that P has not been proven—a very basic fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. The reasoning is fallacious because a lack of evidence for a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false. The rational person believes a proposition when there is evidence that confirms it, rejects a proposition when there is evidence that disconfirms it, and suspends judgment about a proposition when there is no evidence to confirm or disconfirm it (q.v. David H. Lund, Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2003).

Second, his statement does not reject P ("God exists") but rather affirms ¬P ("God does not exist"). I can appreciate someone who refuses to affirm P until there is evidence justifying their doing so, the way your comment described; but it is irrational to affirm ¬P on the basis that P has not been proven, the way Ace's signature does.

Third, what in hell is "infallible evidence" and "irrefutable proof"? What planet are you from that requires standards of that magnitude? Does that mean you can provide infallible evidence or irrefutable proof for every belief you affirm, or will we discover a case of Special Pleading here?