In the comments section of a previous posting, Nikolaj Mikkelsen noted:
“I know of no evidence to support the existence of this thing.”
“there’s no evidence for God”
are two very different propositions. The latter one cannot be supported.
I agree with this, as I made the same distinction back in March:
It is common for atheists to proclaim that “there is no evidence for God’s existence” as if this was some objective truth about our reality. Yet when someone says, “There is no evidence for God,” all they are really saying is “I don’t see any evidence for God.”
This distinction is vital because it helps us appreciate the intellectual bankruptcy of the New Atheist movement.
If we consider all the talking points of the Gnu movement, I think they converge on one simple message – You should not believe in God. Yet if Gnu atheism is nothing more than a bunch of people claiming they know of no evidence to support the existence of God, their movement has no intellectual substance. For it would boil down to Dawkins telling you that since he does not know of any evidence for God, YOU should not believe in God. The proper response to Dawkins would be simple – “Hey, that’s your opinion.” And that’s all it is. After all, this would be no different from Dawkins telling us he does not eat meat because he knows of no reason to eat meat, therefore, YOU should not eat meat.
If Dawkins tells us he knows of no evidence for God, or does not eat meat, he is simply telling us something about himself, not the world. So we live in a world where a man named Richard Dawkins does not see any evidence for God. Big deal.
Sorry, but if the Gnus want to be taken seriously, they need something more than their personal opinions there is no evidence for God. They need to show there truly is no evidence for the existence of God. And they can’t do that without assuming there is no God to begin with.