The whole point was that the lack of evidence is not evidence itself. It is true that a lot of atheists actually do think that it is evidence, but that is a lack of understanding on their part. In actuality, it is not the lack of evidence that supports the contention that there is no god, it is the sheer amount of evidence that points to wholly natural explanations and the lack of a need for there to be a god.
That doesn't make it 'evidence'. It is simply something that reinforces our lack of belief when combined with several other things of a similar nature. My actual point was that demonstrable, empirical evidence of god, both for and against, does not seem to exist. Calling something 'evidence' does not make it evidence.
To repeat a popular misquotation of something Abraham Lincoln said: 'How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg, does not make it a leg.'
That doesn't make it 'evidence'. It is simply something that reinforces our lack of belief when combined with several other things of a similar nature. My actual point was that demonstrable, empirical evidence of god, both for and against, does not seem to exist. Calling something 'evidence' does not make it evidence.
To repeat a popular misquotation of something Abraham Lincoln said: 'How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg, does not make it a leg.'
