No, your assertion was that one who can't provide ironclad,
scientific proof for the non-existence of God is an agnostic,
not an atheist. That is not true. Atheism merely implies
skepticism towards the existence of God.
>It is really quite easy
>to prove this.
>
>1. You cannot present an affirmative case.
Of course; nobody can present an affirmative case disproving
something that is utterly unfalsifiable.
>2. You do not know everything.
Nobody does.
>3. Since you do not know everything, the possibility remains that something
>outside your knowledge exists.
>4. That something may be God.
Or it may be Cthulhu. Or Thor. Or some deity that nobody has
ever even heard of.
For that matter, we can use the same logic to prove how stupid
it is to believe that the earth goes around the sun. After all,
nobody knows *everything*, and there's always the possibility
that everything we know about the earth-sun relationship is just
a misinterpretation of the facts.
>Thus, unless you are omniscient and omnipresent, you cannot say definitively
>there is no God.
Nor is this a requirement of atheism.
>So, if you are going to be a dogmatic atheist, you have to make your case.
If
>you refuse to, you're an agnostic. Nothing wrong with that.
Ah, another bifurcation. You're either a "dogmatic atheist", or an
agnostic.
You really need to do some more reading, Jim.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.