I don't consider a piece of paper that says "Word of God" street magic and card tricks disguised as "miracles" or men dressed like wizards and fat women rolling their eyes and speaking gibberish to be "evidence".
Come on now, do you actually think that atheists believe in your specific deity and just publicly reject such a claim? There are thousands of Gods out there, and which one should we pay homage to? Allah, Buddha, Rhama, even Thor have the exact same true evidence as whatever god or goddess you believe in. The evidence for any benevolent being is in books, pamphlets, and your culture not in science or reason. Incredulity is in no way an argument against atheism, but nice try!!!
"It IS....It IS evidence against atheism."
...
Um...OK. If you REALLY insist, then I guess I'll take you at your word.
....
...
OR.....
...
Or you could actually explain your logic here. I'm interested to hear it. How do you get from "the universe is here" to "a super-being Gustave created it" in a logical manner?
Argument from ignorance, also known as argument um ad ignorants or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been pr oven false (or vice verse). a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider perfectly valid alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disprove, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been pr oven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disprove and (b) false things can never be pr oven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).
Why do atheists consider Argument from incredulity to not be evidence against Atheism
