Big Bang?

[Cyrus]

Maybe it's semantics to you. I understand that. But atheists take this 
very seriously, because it is one of the ways theists keep 
mirepresenting their position. Atheists make no claim. It is theists who 
make the claim that a god exists. Therefore,  the burden of proof lies 
on the theists' side. Since there can be no proof, they employ faith.

And do you really believe the simple inversion of what the other person 
says constitutes an argument?

Cyrus

jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

>> Come on, man, you're employing rhetorics here. This is almost 
>> sophistry. I know you're better than that.
>
>
> The irony is, that, or something very like it, was exactly what 
> occurred to me when I first read what you'd written. ("Mere 
> semantics.") But I decided to show rather than tell.
>
> best
>
>> On 30/09/2005, at 9:43 AM, Cyrus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, Physics (or anyone, for that matter) cannot conclude that 
>>> there is no God, because it is impossible to disprove an existential 
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Therefore, atheism is not the "belief" or "faith" that there is no 
>>> God. Atheism is the absense of theism, i.e. the absense of a belief 
>>> in a god. Usually, atheists who outright claim that there is no god 
>>> do so with the sole purpose of irritating Christians.
>>
>
>