I think these statements reveal quite concerning the confusion in this thread.
I'm going to rephrase your statements - without changing the context of either one - and take out a couple of words that don't really affect the context of the statements (I know you may think they do, but they don't - seriously):
1. Your argument is not that there is evidence directly PROVING there are no deities.
2. Your argument is that there is evidence to conclude that there are no deities.
Pay close attention to the differences in these statements.
#1 is a claim about reality. Essentially, you're admitting that there is no evidence that conclusively shows that there are NO deities.
#2 is a statement of belief as it relates to reality. You tell us that, from your point of view, there is enough evidence to conclude that there are NO deities.
Taken together, you're saying that you understand that there's no conclusive proof that there are no deities, but what evidence you've seen causes you to believe that there are no deities.
If you consider the inverse form of this, you're exhibiting PRECISELY what the atheist would call
religious faith concerning the non-existence of God(s). We've seen it a million times here.
Consider:
"I understand that there's no conclusive proof that there ARE deities, but what evidence I've seen causes me to believe that there ARE deities."
Please give this portion some very careful thought, because a lot of people get very confused about the distinction between saying "I don't
believe in God(s)" and "There are
in fact no God(s)".
As Mican rightly pointed out, he understands that you BELIEVE there are no deities (that's what you're saying in #2). And, as Mican also rightly pointed out, nothing you've presented conclusively shows that there are no God(s).
Bookmarks