A Critique of Pure Atheism

[phreatobite]

Hi, reading the above article was very interesting if misguided as it did not address the myriad refutations of the logical proofs for gods existence, or tackle the very obvious fallacy of argument from ignorance – lack of disproof is not equivalent to proof.

[puto]

Appeal to Ignorance: (1) Claim X is presented by side A, and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. (2) Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. Determining, if any, the burden of proof rests on. “You cannot prove God does not exist, so He does."

phreatobite

how is it different from your own? Point out how you understand their point of view as not valid and your opinion is better. "A rose in the winter has an essence, in the summer it has existence also." The general distinction was one of a posteriori concept and experience.