I support hte notion of falsifiability; for something to be considered to be proven true by evidence, it must accpet the possibility of falsehood, otherwise the preconcpetion that evidence is required to prove a truth is rendered meaningless.

At the same time, the one thing which is evident is that evidential standards can never reach to point of absolute surety. in the words of Socrates, ‘I am wise above all in that I alone that which I do not know’.

To frame atheism as a concept prvable by the absence of evidence for random given religious precepts is a logical fallacy. Why these particular precetpts? Why is atheism correct because we cannot find, for example, evidence of the red sea parting?

On could just sa easily say that atheism is proven by the absence of evidence for a giant, world creating spaghetti monster.

The non-existance of a god is as impossible to prove as the existence of one, and at the same time, one must question why it is a ‘god’ that we are trying to prove or disprove anyway, having seen absolutely no contextualised and parametric evidence that one exists to even give us the necessary background to a hypothesis.

However, in an absence of proof from both sides, where an answer is required we must side with the weighting of the evidene; which for me points to the general absence of the supernatural (that is, absence of evidence for something defined by there being no evidence for it!)

On that basis, I decry atheism, theism, deism and agnosticism as flawed. I declare myself the pruodest of nontheists.

Honestly, I think they’re getting desperate. The attacks on atheists, at least the written/verbal ones, seem to be getting worse–and often more and more ridiculous–by the day.