Arguing With Atheist!

Isn’t it considered a Logical Fallacy that atheist Believe that they don’t use Straw Man Arguments, Confirmation Bias and Correlation without Causation when debating about Theism. Logic and Reasoning should rear its head and stop them short but they continue to spew the same Dogma and have unwavering Faith that God does not exist, although they do not Know with any Certainty that He does not exist. They know that there is no Scientific Method that can produce Empirical data, for or against the Assumption, because Science does not seek to explain things other than the Material world. Yet Atheist assumes their position to be Fact and anyone on the other side of the equation is simply Ignorant. The Big Bang Theory, The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution Theory are used as the basis of not believing in God, yet neither of these theories seeks to explain how Life came into Existence, only how life evolved after it came into Existence.

They Postulate that these theories Prove that God does not Exist and they seem to not understand that the very thing that they claim to be lords over, Logic and Reasoning, should catapult them backwards to being Agnostic, and saying “I Simply Don’t Know”. Instead of God does not Exist, the statement should be “I Believe That God Does Not Exist!”

And herein lies the lunacy; I (an atheist) needs Proof of Existence by using tools that do not seek, let alone claim to be able to Prove my position as true or false! But I want you (the theist) to Prove to me that your position is correct by using a method that I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt can not Prove what I ask of you! The Burden of Proof lies with the one making the claim of Existence, is what is said. This is how they shift burden from themselves and their position so that they can continue on without every truly explaining why they do not Believe.

Continue reading