it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Why not just say there is absolutely no evidence for god and leave it at that?
Because that is absolutely NOT the same thing as saying "God doesn't exist". There lies the fallacy. I agree with you on the lack of evidence. But that only proves the absence of the deity, not its inexistence. There's a logical leap on your reasoning that doesn't adhere to reality, and indeed is a spectacular claim that demands overwhelming evidence from atheists - as much as the evidence demanded from theists.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
There isn't a universally accepted definition of a deity that we can honestly discuss. We can only make conjectures about who, what that entity might be. But, given the absence of said deity, any discussion we may start about it may start with wrong premises. It's incredibly pretensious to say : "define me any deity and I shall prove its inexistence". What a preposterous claim - it sounds very much like a profession of faith. No, Cofty. Both Theists and Atheists make spectacular claims about deity or deities and none of them can provide the necessary overwhelming evidence to back up their claims. It's the only thing that can be honestly said about God - that it's absent.
As for God not corresponding to the ideas we have about God ... I don't see in it enough logical grounds to be an atheist. Perhaps, one could say "I don't care if the God I expected to exist does indeed exist or not. It's indifferent to me." That's another story - that's "apatheism" - apathy towards God.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Because, as you so relentlessly claim, we should always adhere to reality, stick to the evidence, and be prepared to back up spectacular claims with facts. The claim that deities don't exist is at least as spectacular as the claim that they exist. Big claims demand overwhelming evidence, as you always say. Theists can never find evidence that will sufficiently satisfy unbelievers, and atheists cannot provide evidence of the inexistence of a deity that will convince theists. Since you so like Ocam's Razor, the simplest, verifiable claim that can be made about God (or any deity that you chose to elect) isn't that it doesn't exist; simply that it is absent.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nonsense. If I say that a boogeyman couldn't be found in my bedroom, am I claiming that the boogeyman exists? Or am I making the simplest, verifiable claim about the boogeyman? But if I'd say "the boogeyman isn't in my bedroom because it doesn't exist", then I have the burden to present evidence that such entity can't be found in any corner of the universe, and in all dimentions known to physics. See my point?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
My claim is simple: the only thing that can be said about a deity or deities is that their absence is a verifiable fact. By saying this I'm not asserting God's existence and there's no necessity to define said deity or deities. Don't put claims that I'm not making in my mouth.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nope, not the same thing. My proposition adheres to reality, yours doesn't - it merely relies on a probability.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty, God's absence doesn't allow me to make any statements about God. Except that he's absent, which is a verifiable fact.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
No, this is not a belief in a God that is absent. It's a belief that the only thing that can be said about God is that God is absent.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty, by definition there's no evidence of anything's inexistence, God's or otherwise. Yahweh or Thor or the Big Unicorn in the Sky. Gotta love that rabid neo-atheism, huh? However, the ABSENCE of something or someone CAN be attested. And hence, I declare myself "absentheist".
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
It just dawned on me. The existence of God can't be proved, neither is there evidence of God's inexistence. So, I'm neither theist neither atheist. To be an agnostic is to embrace the possibility that God may exist, without evidence to back it up and the certainity that God cannot be known. So, what evidence is there about God? In a word: his ABSENCE. So, here's my newly found belief: I'm ABSENTHEIST.
Are you one also?
Eden
