Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[fr0d0]

meanwhile mine actually has some data to back it up and support the conclusion I have come to.

So what is the purpose of life according to this empirical knowledge that you posess?

Because lets not forget the subject and not switch to another where both you and I CAN draw empirically based conclusions. Why and how would I or could I disagree with you on those? Please state your case.

Now, which of us looks silly: the one who has calibrated his worldview to match the evidence, or the one who holds a worldview in spite of any evidence at all?

Currently you're looking very silly as you appear to be making claims of knowledge from not knowing something.

See, what you fail to realize is that logic is not evidence, and moreover that logic can be faulty. Logic once held that the Earth was flat, since from the ground we see a flat plain. Logic once held that the sky was a dome, since we see it enclosing the (flat) Earth. What showed us that those things were not true? Oh, right: evidence!

You're seriously suggesting that logic is not evidence? I might want to frame that one. If logic is faulty then it isn't logic. It's illogic. To conclude that the earth is flat would be a mistaken assumption, given the evidence.

Something being logically possible tells you nothing about whether or not it exists, only that you're formulated a premise that is not contradictory or otherwise invalid.

Yes. If it pans out/ cannot be disproven... then at this point we hang our best effort at understanding it. This is how science works. Do you not use the same standard for logic??

You are operating under the idea that a logically sound premise is true, and if you want to give that view any kind of weight you need to demonstrate it

(corrected)

...because there are a multitude of other logically possible rationalizations to compete with the one you've picked.

Really? Name a few.

Since you're sticking with this idea that there can be no empirical evidence for your claim, you've kind of logicked yourself out of the running, there.

Why? why can't you use your best logic and defeat it that way? How can you defeat the logic with no evidence? Where is your scientific vigour?

Once again, faith is obstinate gullibility, not evidence.

So you say. But all I see are empty words vs sound logic. Taken at face value, this looks like a clear choice, wouldn't you agree. Which woukld you choose?