(September 29, 2013 at 4:25 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:(September 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Except, it applies to all sides.
False. If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence.
It would be unreasonable to believe in everything for which there is no proof to support their existences, especially considering how many fairy tales in which humanity does not believe. If one is to follow the erroneous logic that a belief in something must be held in spite of the lack of evidence to support its existence, then everyone would be unreasonably attributing to reality everything that the mind concocts no matter how absurd the idea.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence."? Until you can meet the burden of proof, reasonable people can reject your claim.
If you would rather not go in that direction, you could always acknowledge that the real position based on lack of evidence would be agnosticism. It would not be "a-"theism, but "indifference-to-" theism, which agnosticism essentially amounts to.
After all, if you have no evidence that my middle name is Theodore, are you an "a-Theodorist"? Or are you an "agnostic as to the question of what Vinny's middle name is"?
To answer this honestly, you have to lay aside your preconceived notions and think about the question itself.
