atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I disagree, absence of evidence is just that, absence of evidence. Extrapolating absence of evidence to become evidence of absence is, for me, taking it one step too far. To have evidence of absence we need evidence of myth origin or evidence that precludes the real world existance of the object in question.

Very well put, mon ami! I believe that there is a missing link though I have seen no evidence to support or deny this theory.

[Fluffy]

When members in this thread have said they felt that agnosticism is the most scientific methodology, are they referring to weak or strong agnosticism?

Also, I think it is unfair to compare agnosticism with atheism when they are not of a similar nature. Agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by halycon

To have evidence of absence we need evidence of myth origin or evidence that precludes the real world existance of the object in question.

Would you say this is in keeping with the same scientific method eshewed by atheists?

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Leprechauns,unicorns, cyclops, kraken, dragons, ape men, sea monsters etc are all mythical beings but usually have real-world origins as exemplifyed in the links i gave.
A god is in a totally different league to such creatures and really should not be compared.

So is the "talking" snake in the Garden of Eden. Even the Garden of Eden is mythical.

From my perspective, angels and demons are mythical too. Spirits, good or evil, are either mythical or folklore-ish. If gods and goddesses of polytheistic religions are considered mythical by Christians and Muslims, then wouldn't it stand to reason that God - Yahweh, Allah, or whatever you want to call him - is also mythical?

What rights do any Christian to label the Egyptian or Greek deities to be mythical, but their One God is not? There isn't any more evidence of the Abrahamic god than that of other religions. I don't find any more proof of God's existence than from any other "mythology", except through so-called "testimonies" (writings of so-called "prophets") in the so-called "Holy Scripture".

All it take is a little faith to believe what is written in the Bible, Qur'an, etc, which is basically no different from believing in goblins and ghouls.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I disagree, absence of evidence is just that, absence of evidence. Extrapolating absence of evidence to become evidence of absence is, for me, taking it one step too far.

The absence of evidence is, in all cases, evidence. The quality/worth of this evidence depends on the likelihood of such an absence.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by jay

The quality/worth of this evidence depends on the likelihood of such an absence.

I'll be the king of obvious questions, i suppose: what do you mean by "likelihood" of absence?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

I'll be the king of obvious questions, i suppose: what do you mean by "likelihood" of absence?

If you come to me well dressed and unmarked, do not presume to tell me that you've just fought off a gang of muggers.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

The absence of evidence is, in all cases, evidence.

One might as well say that the absense of motive is, in all cases motive. Or the absense of logic is, in all cases logic. Sure, it doesn't completely follow, but it illustrates the limits of the statement.

Replace the word "all" with some or often and I would agree with you. The absolutism of your statement renders it improbable if not impossible.

Looking for the magic word in the response.