It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It isn't that you are not explaining yourself, the problem is that you are basing your argument on a faulty premise and then applying "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" incorrectly.
Really? I mean... seriously? Short term memory, intentionally misleading, deceiving, trolling? I don't get it at all.
'Round and 'round we go, huh?
See, the thing about online forums is that when people make false assertions, the proof is still usually in the same discussion, if not on the same page a few posts away.
What was the point? The point for me is find mutual understanding that leads to agreement. Apparently and obviously for you and at least one other, the point is always disagree and to pay no attention to what the other guy is trying to say, just make stuff up.
If you are attempting to set this up into a subsequent trap that, "because no one here falls under the category of your example, thus you need to go away", you are again making another logical fallacy.
You're joking right?
Hypothesis and theories aren't facts.
And saying that you have evidence of something existing (irregardless of how overwhelming it is), is the SAME thing as saying you don't actually see it.
Evidence can only be a pointer.
Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating wether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The words 'hypothesis' , 'theory' or 'Evidence' isn't synonymous with the word Fact.
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis
Oh I now see why I couldn't understand your position. At first I thought you were under the impression that the big bang theory says that it came from nothing but as you stated you know that is not the case. Instead, you were assigning a position to atheism which as you said some people you have had contact with held. While you can demonstrate to those people who hold that position that what they are doing is a logical fallacy if you are trying to attribute that position to atheism then you would be guilty of building a strawman fallacy against atheism.
Put simply atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.(period) Nothing follows.
I guess in the same sense the position some hold that nothing came before god would also be a logical fallacy but I do not think we can apply that position to all theists just to those who hold that position.
Just as I do not need faith to not believe in leprechauns I do not need faith to not believe in deities in fact the word atheist in all likely hood shouldn't exist as we do not need the word a-leprechaunist to describe the lack of belief in leprechauns. I think the word atheist arose because in recent times the default position of society has been that everyone must believe so the need arose to define the position of those who do not believe.