RE: Argument against atheism
December 23, 2011 at 10:40 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 10:42 pm by amkerman.)
I find it hard to believe that you "demand evidence and results" for every iteration of every possible question or every observable phenomenon. You have successfully ventured into an argument of definition. If you simply don't believe the things you observe as real which there is no explanation for you are, as I define it, an atheist. If you accept those things as true because you observe them to be true yet acknowledge that you cannot explain them you, as I see it, believe in "God". One is logical because it coincides with observation, the other is blind faith and contrary to all scientific observation. Ironically, atheism, as I define it, is illogical, not the other way around. But again, the definitions are solely my own. I wouldn't classify most, if any, of the atheists I know as "atheists" under my definition. Accept you rhythm, because you neither assume nor believe anything you can not explain, even if you observe it to be true in reality.
*except
*except