Hi folks.
I'm sure some of you have seen this before. I like it though, so I thought that I'd post it for those who haven't seen it.
![[Image: 70539c063291d2742ce43003bc501e54.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/70/53/9c/70539c063291d2742ce43003bc501e54.jpg)
I was also wondering . . . I ran across this quote in another thread: argument from ignorance is "you can't prove It's false, thus its true" or "you can't prove it's true, thus it's false" Well, I think I have actually used that last phrase as "no empirical evidence for god = no god." Is this a logical fallacy? Should every atheist who has gnostic moments hedge their bets and claim to be an agnostic instead? Because the more accurate statement is "I have seen no evidence that convinces me that a god exists." ???
I'm sure some of you have seen this before. I like it though, so I thought that I'd post it for those who haven't seen it.
I was also wondering . . . I ran across this quote in another thread: argument from ignorance is "you can't prove It's false, thus its true" or "you can't prove it's true, thus it's false" Well, I think I have actually used that last phrase as "no empirical evidence for god = no god." Is this a logical fallacy? Should every atheist who has gnostic moments hedge their bets and claim to be an agnostic instead? Because the more accurate statement is "I have seen no evidence that convinces me that a god exists." ???
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
