Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?

This, of course, is nonsense You are trying to equate an immensely complex probablistic logical construct (absence of evidence is evidence of absence) with a very simplistic statement of predicate logic. What we reallly have is NOT EVI(A)-> EVI(NOT A). Can you give me a definition of EVI()?I think it is obvious that absence of evidence is evidence of absence for all "reasonable" definitions of "evidence". This may be extremely weak evidence, but it is evidence none-the-less. We are essentially performing a search of a parameter space for a particular target. Null-results simply reduce the available parameter space for our target. The confidence in a declaration of absence will depend upon the known parametric extent of the target, and the remaining available parameter space. Ever played battleships? What is the probability of finding a battleship in an unsearched 4x4 grid, that is surrounded by null results?And whilst we may be only generating *evidence* of absence, we are gaining knowledge of the constraints of target...

I was rather disturbed by one particular accusation that RAZD repeated in this thread - that atheists hold a world-view and pick and choose the evidence that supports that world-view. I held a theistic position for twenty-odd years, acknowledging a complete lack of objective evidence. Eventually, catalysed by discussions at EvC, this lack of evidence has switched my position to agnostic/atheistic. I have no desire to be an atheist, but evidence pushes me this way. My spiritual journey is by no means over, and I may end up somewhere completely different, if evidence leads me there. Evidence determines my world-view... simple really.