But the second one is talking about an absence of evidence against God, in which case it would clearly be irrational to be an atheist... there is no way I would be an atheist if there weren't strong evidence and arguments against God. If I thought the evidence was lacking, I would be agnostic.
The first one only mentions that there is an absence of evidence for the Loch Ness monster... that's entirely different than saying there is no evidence against it. Again, if there were no evidence against it, I would not think it rational to disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster.
I think that if I had answered either of these false, I would be contradicting myself and going against my beliefs. Yet somehow, they think that I'm contradicting myself by answering in the same way to both.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The first one only mentions that there is an absence of evidence for the Loch Ness monster... that's entirely different than saying there is no evidence against it. Again, if there were no evidence against it, I would not think it rational to disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster.
I think that if I had answered either of these false, I would be contradicting myself and going against my beliefs. Yet somehow, they think that I'm contradicting myself by answering in the same way to both.
no subject
I think they're comparing apples and oranges, and the two statements can't really be compared the way they do.