Seriously, who is the fool?
A person who believes that something exists simply because they are told it exists, or a person who remains skeptical of something existing because there is no evidence for it?
Atheism
The contradictory belief of fools
A belief based on the non existence of deities
In it’s own definition and foundations it acknowledges deities as something that exists or else there would be no need to label atheism as a belief since there is no such thing as a deity.
I’m not saying deities exist, I’m just saying atheists contradict themselves in their basic principles and therefore atheism is an obsolete belief.
Don’t mind me, I just think in logic.
It’s not logic; it’s semantics. By the same reasoning, being a non-unicornist acknowledges the existence and subsequently denies unicorns.
Wait, there’s no such thing as unicorns?
Contradictory belief of fools? Seriously?
I mean, FUCKING SERIOUSLY???
It’s a bit more contradictory to believe things for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence for, no way to be confirmed.
The fact that there is a word for something doesn’t prove shit, really, this is kindergarten logic, and a fucking word game.
Atheist is the opposite of Theist, there are atheist, because there are theists, so if you want to play your kindergarten logic games, the only thing that there being atheists is proof of is that there are theists, if you put actual logic to it, you lose your own game.
The taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies.
This is a great reference!
Click here for a hyperlinked version with definitions of each fallacy.
A gap in knowledge is not proof of anything.
Lets use a math analogy here.
Lets say we have a statement:
a * b = c
“a” multiplied by “b” is equal to “c”
We have no idea what the values of a, b or c is, at this point it is impossible to accurately solve the problem. We can make assumptions or assign arbitrary values to any two of the variables in order to make a solution, but we would be making an assumption, and in no way would know if it was an accurate solution.
So, lets say we did some research and we find that c is equal to 20.
Now, armed with this information, we can start to get accurate predictions as to what a and b may represent.
It could be that a and b could be:
2 * 10, 4 * 5, or 1 * 20 - and all of these answers could be correct within context. We are not fully making assumptions any more because any of these answers could be the correct answer, in this case no one answer is more correct than another because of a gap in information (the true value of a or b).
It would be illogical to assume any one of the three answers were the most correct, but this is exactly what one is doing when they try to disprove any aspect of science with a gap in knowledge.
Just because there are gaps in the fossil record, it doesn’t disprove anything, nor does it prove anything, this would be like me picking one of the three possible answers above and automatically assuming that is the correct answer, actually in the case of creationism and such it would be more like saying I know which answer is the correct one and even if I learn the value of a or b, I still stick with my original answer because I have an attachment to it.
All of this is similar to how scientific scientific method works, by gathering information, we now have a theory that the answer to the problem, and the value of a and b is one of the three answers above, through further research we could learn the value of a or b, then we have solved the problem.
There is no disputing data and the results of experiments, especially in cases where the experiments are carried out multiple times with the same results, or the data obtained from research and experiments over several attempts is consistent.
This is why science doesn’t require faith or belief, because there is data available to back up a position. This is also why creationism isn’t science. It fills in the gaps with god or states that the gaps imply that the existing data is invalid. This isn’t how it works.
Sooner or later we’ll find that value of a or b and have an indisputable answer. You can’t sit there and argue with the data, no matter how bad you want it to be incorrect.
